On Fri, 2014-07-18 20:36:20 -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson <h...@bitrange.com> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2014, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > This was a build using GCC's ./contrib/config-list.mk to do the build. > > It passes --enable-werror-always to top-level `configure', this is > > where the -Werror comes from. > > Aha. Looks like it's of more use than theoretical pain; sounds > like this should (effectively) be the default for *non-releases* > when cross-compiling, with the possibility to override > per-target. Agreement? Anyone against? 1/2 :)
I'm all for it. > It should be per-target because there *may* be port-specific > constructs warned about by buggy previous-but-not-ancient > gcc-versions, where working around the warnings would cause > unwanted obfuscation. (IIRC gdb does something like this.) For example, the PDP11 target has an unresoved warning: http://toolchain.lug-owl.de/buildbot/show_build_details.php?id=306062 g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -Woverloaded-virtual -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -Werror -fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../../gcc/gcc -I../../../gcc/gcc/. -I../../../gcc/gcc/../include -I../../../gcc/gcc/../libcpp/include -I/opt/cfarm/mpc/include -I../../../gcc/gcc/../libdecnumber -I../../../gcc/gcc/../libdecnumber/dpd -I../libdecnumber -I../../../gcc/gcc/../libbacktrace -o cfgexpand.o -MT cfgexpand.o -MMD -MP -MF ./.deps/cfgexpand.TPo ../../../gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c ../../../gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c: In function ‘basic_block_def* expand_gimple_cond(basic_block, gimple)’: ../../../gcc/gcc/cfgexpand.c:2100:65: error: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type [-Werror=type-limits] else if (BRANCH_COST (optimize_insn_for_speed_p (), false) < 4) ^ cc1plus: all warnings being treated as errors make[2]: *** [cfgexpand.o] Error 1 ISTR that I brought this up on the list, but there wasn't a final solution about how to "fix" that; the warning is kind of questionable in this context, but in itself is correct. > Is that the reason it's not the default, that there are such > constructs in the non-port-specific parts? But then that would > have already been noticed through use of the config-list.mk, no? Don't know :) MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw jbg...@lug-owl.de +49-172-7608481 Signature of: What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for the second : others and the world remains and is immortal. (Albert Pine)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
