On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 11:17 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: > On 11 February 2015 at 16:12, Jan Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 10:28 -0800, Dylan Baker wrote: > >> I just want to be clear I was asking a question, I don't really care one > >> way or another, I would just rather not see code churn if it doesn't > >> actually buy us anything. > > > > Not sure what the question is here. The idea is to force msvc like > > limitations on other compilers by using -Werror= for unsupported > > features. It should result in fewer commits like [0]. > > We can do it > > a) globally even for stuff that is never built using msvc > > b) per directory > > > > I think a) is better given that the required changes are minimal (only > > the two posted patches), and using alloca instead gives identical > > behavior. it makes codestyle consistent across files, and Jose's way of > > removing the flags using string function seems a bit hacky to me > > > Do you have a rough number how many tests warn about VLA currently ? > Must admit that I've very rarely look at the compilation output of > piglit. That combined the fact that new piglits get added > incrementally is a nice indication, imho, about one should handle > this. > > Or in other words - it there are only a few of tests that need fixing, > there should be no problem with adding this. Otherwise it's a > different story.
When configured with all PIGLIT_BUILD_*_TESTS set to ON only the two patches in this series (1/3, 2/3) are needed to make the entire tree (0060f5998a) build with -Werror=declaration-after-statement -Werror=vla (gcc 4.9.2, although I don't think these are version dependent) jan > > -Emil -- Jan Vesely <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
