On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote: > Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The setting of NO_WERROR belongs in [BTX]MAKE if anywhere. This is > > already done for [BX]MAKE but not for TMAKE. However, I don't like > > turning off warnings for any of these. Warnings for these stages may > > be even more important and should be less likely than warnings for > > building the final world, since it is very important for basic tools > > to be correct and for their source to be careful about portabilty > > issues. > > Well, unfortunately I don't think we can depend on older compilers > having correct warnings. In PR 40382, it would seem the 4.5 -> HEAD > upgrade path is broken because of fatal warnings. A good workaround
The problem in that PR seems to be just the current breakage of __printf0like. > for that problem might be specifying NO_WERROR for the entire build, > in which case -Werror becomes useless anyway. So we might just as > well disable early fatal warnings and hope that developers can catch > most of the bugs later on in the build. It's true that the host compiler might emit spurious warnings. But I think it's worth checking new ones (for new hosts and especially for new sources) carefully. I won't argue this point strongly. We mostly avoid seeing problems by not enabling many warnings (we don't set WARNS for cc, and we set it to to for binutils). > > This also has some style bugs :). Any setting of NO_WERROR turns it on, > > so setting it to different spellings of boolean true is just confusing. > > It is set correctly for for [BX]MAKE. > > Oh, that's a much nicer location. :) I think only BMAKE has > NO_WERROR defined, not XMAKE. XMAKE is based on BMAKE :). Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
