On 2019/02/13 21:13, Christos Zoulas wrote:
In article ,
Rin Okuyama wrote:
Hi,
On 2019/02/13 6:07, Paul Goyette wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Rin Okuyama wrote:
Hi,
As Martin pointed out, it is useful for debugging to turn on
DIAGNOSTIC for modules (for non-release branches).
Now, all
In article ,
Rin Okuyama wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 2019/02/13 6:07, Paul Goyette wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Rin Okuyama wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> As Martin pointed out, it is useful for debugging to turn on
>>> DIAGNOSTIC for modules (for non-release branches).
>>>
>>> Now, all modules for amd64
On 2019/02/13 19:06, Paul Goyette wrote:
I would also wonder if we could increase the WARNS?= level from 3 to 5 (to
match the current WARNS?= level used for kernel builds). Has anyone tried to
see how many modules would fail with WARNS?=5 ??
Thank you for your comment.
Well, I examined
I would also wonder if we could increase the WARNS?= level from 3 to 5 (to
match the current WARNS?= level used for kernel builds). Has anyone tried
to see how many modules would fail with WARNS?=5 ??
Thank you for your comment.
Well, I examined that (both for GCC7 & clang). Among ~ 360
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Rin Okuyama wrote:
Hi,
As Martin pointed out, it is useful for debugging to turn on
DIAGNOSTIC for modules (for non-release branches).
Now, all modules for amd64 are successfully built with DIAGNOSTIC.
I'd like to commit the patch below, if there's no objection.
This
Hi,
As Martin pointed out, it is useful for debugging to turn on
DIAGNOSTIC for modules (for non-release branches).
Now, all modules for amd64 are successfully built with DIAGNOSTIC.
I'd like to commit the patch below, if there's no objection.
Thanks,
rin
Index: sys/modules/Makefile.inc
