On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 01:43:59AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:11:30PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 06:15:07AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Brian Norris writes:
> > > >
> > > > 4. better ideas?
> > >
> > > Just send patches to remove -Werror
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:11:30PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 06:15:07AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Brian Norris writes:
> > >
> > > 4. better ideas?
> >
> > Just send patches to remove -Werror in all architectures
> > as a tree sweep (and anywhere else where someone
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 06:15:07AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Brian Norris writes:
> >
> > 4. better ideas?
>
> Just send patches to remove -Werror in all architectures
> as a tree sweep (and anywhere else where someone misguided add it)
In arch/sparc/ we have -Werror and this has never troubled
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 06:15:07AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Brian Norris writes:
> >
> > 4. better ideas?
>
> Just send patches to remove -Werror in all architectures
> as a tree sweep (and anywhere else where someone misguided add it)
I cited at least one example in which this was attempted
Brian Norris writes:
>
> 4. better ideas?
Just send patches to remove -Werror in all architectures
as a tree sweep (and anywhere else where someone misguided add it)
Having -Werror anywhere in a shipping release is just plainly a bug,
as it makes it often impossible to build on newer gcc
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:11:30PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 06:15:07AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
Brian Norris computersforpe...@gmail.com writes:
4. better ideas?
Just send patches to remove -Werror in all architectures
as a tree sweep (and anywhere else
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 01:43:59AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:11:30PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 06:15:07AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
Brian Norris computersforpe...@gmail.com writes:
4. better ideas?
Just send patches to remove
Brian Norris computersforpe...@gmail.com writes:
4. better ideas?
Just send patches to remove -Werror in all architectures
as a tree sweep (and anywhere else where someone misguided add it)
Having -Werror anywhere in a shipping release is just plainly a bug,
as it makes it often impossible to
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 06:15:07AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
Brian Norris computersforpe...@gmail.com writes:
4. better ideas?
Just send patches to remove -Werror in all architectures
as a tree sweep (and anywhere else where someone misguided add it)
I cited at least one example in which
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 06:15:07AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
Brian Norris computersforpe...@gmail.com writes:
4. better ideas?
Just send patches to remove -Werror in all architectures
as a tree sweep (and anywhere else where someone misguided add it)
In arch/sparc/ we have -Werror and this
On Aug 15, 2014, at 9:34 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> (BTW, your mailer is creating some pretty long, unwrapped lines. I've
> rewrapped them when quoting below.)
Sorry about that. I'll try to remember to deal with it on my end.
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 08:36:07PM -0700, Mark D
On Aug 15, 2014, at 9:34 PM, Brian Norris computersforpe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Mark,
(BTW, your mailer is creating some pretty long, unwrapped lines. I've
rewrapped them when quoting below.)
Sorry about that. I'll try to remember to deal with it on my end.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at
Hi Mark,
(BTW, your mailer is creating some pretty long, unwrapped lines. I've
rewrapped them when quoting below.)
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 08:36:07PM -0700, Mark D Rustad wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2014, at 12:33 PM, Brian Norris
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 02:30:49AM -0700, Jeff Kirsher
Brian,
On Aug 15, 2014, at 12:33 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 02:30:49AM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
>> Funny that you bring this up because I have ~60 patches in my queue to
>> resolve several thousand of these warnings. Half of the patches
>> actually resolve
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 02:30:49AM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> Funny that you bring this up because I have ~60 patches in my queue to
> resolve several thousand of these warnings. Half of the patches
> actually resolve warnings that can be resolved and the other half
> implement compiler
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Lennart Sorensen
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 03:21:19PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
>> I'm interested in being able to build-test kernels on various
>> architectures while enabling extra warnings (make W=[123]). I'd like to
>> be able to finish the builds and
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 03:21:19PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> I'm interested in being able to build-test kernels on various
> architectures while enabling extra warnings (make W=[123]). I'd like to
> be able to finish the builds and see all warnings, rather than seeing a
> failed build. However,
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Brian Norris
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm interested in being able to build-test kernels on various
> architectures while enabling extra warnings (make W=[123]). I'd like to
> be able to finish the builds and see all warnings, rather than seeing a
> failed build.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Brian Norris
computersforpe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'm interested in being able to build-test kernels on various
architectures while enabling extra warnings (make W=[123]). I'd like to
be able to finish the builds and see all warnings, rather than seeing
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 03:21:19PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
I'm interested in being able to build-test kernels on various
architectures while enabling extra warnings (make W=[123]). I'd like to
be able to finish the builds and see all warnings, rather than seeing a
failed build. However,
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Lennart Sorensen
lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 03:21:19PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
I'm interested in being able to build-test kernels on various
architectures while enabling extra warnings (make W=[123]). I'd like to
be able to
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 02:30:49AM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
Funny that you bring this up because I have ~60 patches in my queue to
resolve several thousand of these warnings. Half of the patches
actually resolve warnings that can be resolved and the other half
implement compiler
Brian,
On Aug 15, 2014, at 12:33 PM, Brian Norris computersforpe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 02:30:49AM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
Funny that you bring this up because I have ~60 patches in my queue to
resolve several thousand of these warnings. Half of the patches
Hi Mark,
(BTW, your mailer is creating some pretty long, unwrapped lines. I've
rewrapped them when quoting below.)
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 08:36:07PM -0700, Mark D Rustad wrote:
On Aug 15, 2014, at 12:33 PM, Brian Norris computersforpe...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 02:30:49AM
Hi all,
I'm interested in being able to build-test kernels on various
architectures while enabling extra warnings (make W=[123]). I'd like to
be able to finish the builds and see all warnings, rather than seeing a
failed build. However, GCC's -Werror is incompatible with this. There is
plenty of
Hi all,
I'm interested in being able to build-test kernels on various
architectures while enabling extra warnings (make W=[123]). I'd like to
be able to finish the builds and see all warnings, rather than seeing a
failed build. However, GCC's -Werror is incompatible with this. There is
plenty of
26 matches
Mail list logo
