>>> On 03.01.17 at 15:38, <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/5] Remove hardcoded strict
> -Werror checking"):
>> Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com> 12/22/16 8:14 PM >>>
>> &
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/5] Remove hardcoded strict
-Werror checking"):
> Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com> 12/22/16 8:14 PM >>>
> >Unfortunately the APPEND_CFLAGS=-Wno-error doesn't fix all the issues
> >as I still
>>> On 29.12.16 at 18:30, wrote:
> On 29/12/2016 17:10, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Andrew Cooper
>> wrote:
>>> On 27/12/16 15:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> "Jan Beulich" 12/27/16 4:42 PM >>>
On 29/12/2016 17:10, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Andrew Cooper
> wrote:
>> On 27/12/16 15:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> "Jan Beulich" 12/27/16 4:42 PM >>>
>> Alistair Francis 12/22/16 8:14
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Andrew Cooper
wrote:
> On 27/12/16 15:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> "Jan Beulich" 12/27/16 4:42 PM >>>
> Alistair Francis 12/22/16 8:14 PM >>>
Everyone seems fairly
On 27/12/16 15:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
"Jan Beulich" 12/27/16 4:42 PM >>>
Alistair Francis 12/22/16 8:14 PM >>>
Everyone seems fairly open to an override. Is a environment variable,
which if set will disable Werror acceptable? Something like
On 12/27/16 9:53 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
"Jan Beulich" 12/27/16 4:42 PM >>>
Alistair Francis 12/22/16 8:14 PM >>>
>>> Everyone seems fairly open to an override. Is a environment variable,
>>> which if set will disable Werror acceptable?
>>> "Jan Beulich" 12/27/16 4:42 PM >>>
>>> Alistair Francis 12/22/16 8:14 PM >>>
>>Everyone seems fairly open to an override. Is a environment variable,
>>which if set will disable Werror acceptable? Something like NO_ERROR=Y
>>which will result in
>>> Alistair Francis 12/22/16 8:14 PM >>>
>On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.12.16 at 20:46, wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis
>>
>> Without some
t 11:22 AM, Ian Jackson
>>>>>> <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Alistair Francis writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/5] Remove
>>>>>>> hardcoded strict -Werror checking"):
>>>>>>>> On Thu,
e:
>>>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Alistair Francis
>>>> <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Ian Jackson
>>>>> <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Alistair Fran
...@xilinx.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Ian Jackson
>>>> <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>> Alistair Francis writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/5] Remove
>>>>> hardcoded strict -Werror checking"):
.@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
Alistair Francis writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/5] Remove hardcoded strict
-Werror checking"):
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
On 20.12.16 at 20:46, <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com> wrote:
Signed
te:
>>> Alistair Francis writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/5] Remove hardcoded
>>> strict -Werror checking"):
>>>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 20.12.16 at 20:46, <alis
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Alistair Francis
<alistair.fran...@xilinx.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com>
> wrote:
>> Alistair Francis writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/5] Remove hardcoded
>> strict
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> Alistair Francis writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/5] Remove hardcoded
> strict -Werror checking"):
>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com&g
Alistair Francis writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/5] Remove hardcoded
strict -Werror checking"):
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 20.12.16 at 20:46, <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com> wrote:
> >> Signed
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.12.16 at 20:46, wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis
>
> Without some rationale given I don't think such changes are
> acceptable at all. And then,
>>> On 20.12.16 at 20:46, wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis
Without some rationale given I don't think such changes are
acceptable at all. And then, as already pointed out others, the
use of -Werror is there not just for fun. If
Doug Goldstein writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/5] Remove hardcoded strict
-Werror checking"):
> I agree with you Andrew that its good for kernel/hypervisor development.
> I also agree its good for userspace code prior to being committed or
> part of a CI loop. Where I wish
On 12/20/16 2:16 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 20/12/2016 20:06, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> On 12/20/16 1:46 PM, Alistair Francis wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis
>>> ---
>>> Config.mk | 2 +-
>>> tools/blktap2/drivers/Makefile | 1 -
>>>
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Andrew Cooper
wrote:
> On 20/12/2016 20:06, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> On 12/20/16 1:46 PM, Alistair Francis wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis
>>> ---
>>> Config.mk | 2 +-
>>>
On 20/12/2016 20:06, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> On 12/20/16 1:46 PM, Alistair Francis wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis
>> ---
>> Config.mk | 2 +-
>> tools/blktap2/drivers/Makefile | 1 -
>> tools/libxl/Makefile | 2 +-
>>
On 12/20/16 1:46 PM, Alistair Francis wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis
> ---
> Config.mk | 2 +-
> tools/blktap2/drivers/Makefile | 1 -
> tools/libxl/Makefile | 2 +-
> tools/xentrace/Makefile| 2 --
> 4 files changed,
Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis
---
Config.mk | 2 +-
tools/blktap2/drivers/Makefile | 1 -
tools/libxl/Makefile | 2 +-
tools/xentrace/Makefile| 2 --
4 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Config.mk
25 matches
Mail list logo