On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 07:20:46AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 07:06:54PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > If you use the argument that one shouldn't set WARNS because a new
> > compiler will cause the tree to break, then there's no point having it
> > at all since that co
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 07:06:54PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> If you use the argument that one shouldn't set WARNS because a new
> compiler will cause the tree to break, then there's no point having it
> at all since that condition will always be true.
The difference is _impending_.
--
-- D
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 09:17:17AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 03:30:32PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > This delta breaks buildworld. gcc(1) has a known bug-feature
> > of hiding some errors in standard system headers, making them
> > invisible without -I.
> ...
> > a
David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not to mention there is ZERO way this code will pass WARNS=4 for GCC 3.
> Please Committers, do not try to WARNS code right now -- there just is no
> use. It will only get in the way later.
>
> Well, of course feel free to make the code changes, but PL
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 03:30:32PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> This delta breaks buildworld. gcc(1) has a known bug-feature
> of hiding some errors in standard system headers, making them
> invisible without -I.
...
> and compile now can't survive the WARNS=4.
Not to mention there is ZERO way
