Are we in agreement that this is the way to go? Below is change I gleaned from this email thread.
diff -r dc9b77ea48d4 usr/src/Makefile.master --- a/usr/src/Makefile.master Wed Jan 28 15:03:17 2009 -0600 +++ b/usr/src/Makefile.master Thu Feb 05 10:14:22 2009 -0600 @@ -652,10 +652,11 @@ ALWAYS_LINT_DEFS += -erroff=E_INTEGRAL_CONST_EXP_EXPECTED ALWAYS_LINT_DEFS += -erroff=E_PASS_INT_TO_SMALL_INT ALWAYS_LINT_DEFS += -erroff=E_PTR_CONV_LOSES_BITS +LINT_ONLY_DEFS = -I$(SPRO_VROOT)/prod/include/lint SECLEVEL= core -LINT.c= $(LINT) $(LINTFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) $(ALWAYS_LINT_DEFS) -LINT64.c= $(LINT) $(LINTFLAGS64) $(CPPFLAGS) $(ALWAYS_LINT_DEFS) +LINT.c= $(LINT) $(LINT_ONLY_DEFS) $(LINTFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) $(ALWAYS_LINT_DEFS) +LINT64.c= $(LINT) $(LINT_ONLY_DEFS) $(LINTFLAGS64) $(CPPFLAGS) $(ALWAYS_LINT_DEFS) LINT.s= $(LINT.c) # For some future builds, NATIVE_MACH and MACH might be different. If this is acceptable, should this change to in against 4875943? I've never actually delivered into ON before, so I might need a bit of hand holding on the official process (unless of course one of you wanted to deliver it :-) ). Thanks, Charles Binford Darren J Moffat wrote: > Mark J. Nelson wrote: >>> Why wouldn't that work ? >> >> This was proposed in 4393089, and was one of my earlier suggestions. >> I think the general objections are that we're embedding private >> knowledge of devpro internals. >> >> I know that we're only shadow compiling, not shadow linting, but I'm >> still loathe to introduce product-specific info like this into our >> command lines. > > My view is that this is acceptable given that lint only exists for > devpro and we already have lint settings in Makefile.master that > reference devpro lint bugs. >
