On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Mike Stump wrote: > On Jul 22, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson <h...@bitrange.com> wrote: > > > > *Developers* (or rather, people cross-building non-released gcc > > source in their usual setup) don't use the fairly old or even > > broken host gcc versions that can be expected in use in the > > general public (well, the users that still want to build gcc > > from releases and not use pre-built binaries).
(Hey, I proved that false myself and stated as much, see the "But, the above..." rebuttal half-way through my post!) > :-) Speak for yourself. I do cross, I deliver cross, and we > just use the same old /bin/gcc that everyone else uses. And, we > might well deliver on OSes other than the one released last > week. In my case, /bin/gcc is 4.4.7. Though, I usually develop > on 4.6.3 and 4.8.2. So, what I want is software that builds and > works. I object to any patch that causes gcc to not build. [etc] Mike, you miss the point of my post, and the patch too. Maybe I was unclear. There seems to be violent agreement... First, about the effect on the patch, regarding code deliveries like your case above, you don't deliver DEV-PHASE = experimental code (hopefully, with all the default redundant internal testing it does). More likely, you deliver releases, in which this developer-phase testing wouldn't be enabled. The intent of the patch was to help avoiding the *GCC developer* situation where a person patches a lot of targets but in his sanity-build misses out on introducing valid warnings about a typo-level warning, exactly like the commit from which this thread started. The patch worked as intended, but as I mentioned (apparently ambiguously enough), that intent was based on a false pretense that most targets *do* work with -Werror. The fallout is actually (still) overwhelming. You definitely wanted to make sure I didn't miss that last point. You don't have to worry about that, never needed. (I did mention breaking host gcc versions overlapping those you mention - including quotes of identical breakages!) I posted the patch on the off-chance that there actually *is* a later version in which all invalid warnings are gone. Note that I didn't actually ask for approval. I did ask for a host gcc version where builds with --enable-werror-always work! brgds, H-P
