Re: Do we want to let cpp(1) hide warnings in system headers?

2003-03-30 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 02:07:20PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 09:09:18AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 03:19:05PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:08:54PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > > > Sigh.  It's been a while since I've fixed the "feature" of gcc(1)
> > > > that makes it hide warnings in system headers (but visible with
> > > > -nostdinc -I/usr/include).
> > > 
> > > What is the difference in output from "make buildworld"?
> > > 
> > Lot of (non-fatal) warnings.
> 
> I was hoping you'd acutally show some of the increased warning output.
> 
Without this, cpp(1) doesn't warn about redefinitions in
system headers, that's how I hit this bug.


Cheers,
-- 
Ruslan Ermilov  Sysadmin and DBA,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Sunbay Software AG,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine

http://www.FreeBSD.org  The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com   Enabling The Information Age


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: Do we want to let cpp(1) hide warnings in system headers?

2003-03-30 Thread David O'Brien
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 09:09:18AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 03:19:05PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:08:54PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > > Sigh.  It's been a while since I've fixed the "feature" of gcc(1)
> > > that makes it hide warnings in system headers (but visible with
> > > -nostdinc -I/usr/include).
> > 
> > What is the difference in output from "make buildworld"?
> > 
> Lot of (non-fatal) warnings.

I was hoping you'd acutally show some of the increased warning output.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: Do we want to let cpp(1) hide warnings in system headers?

2003-03-29 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 03:19:05PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:08:54PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > Sigh.  It's been a while since I've fixed the "feature" of gcc(1)
> > that makes it hide warnings in system headers (but visible with
> > -nostdinc -I/usr/include).
> 
> What is the difference in output from "make buildworld"?
> 
Lot of (non-fatal) warnings.


Cheers,
-- 
Ruslan Ermilov  Sysadmin and DBA,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Sunbay Software AG,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine

http://www.FreeBSD.org  The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com   Enabling The Information Age


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: Do we want to let cpp(1) hide warnings in system headers?

2003-03-29 Thread David O'Brien
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:08:54PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> Sigh.  It's been a while since I've fixed the "feature" of gcc(1)
> that makes it hide warnings in system headers (but visible with
> -nostdinc -I/usr/include).

What is the difference in output from "make buildworld"?
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Do we want to let cpp(1) hide warnings in system headers?

2003-03-13 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
Sigh.  It's been a while since I've fixed the "feature" of gcc(1)
that makes it hide warnings in system headers (but visible with
-nostdinc -I/usr/include).  I've stumbled upon a problem today,
wondering, why the hell cpp(1) wasn't complaining me about the
redefines, and the answer was: GNU cpp(1) hides warnings in system
headers by default.  Rather than hack contrib/gcc sources, it can
be fixed the official way, like this:

%%%
Index: bsd.sys.mk
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/share/mk/bsd.sys.mk,v
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -r1.11 bsd.sys.mk
--- bsd.sys.mk  13 Nov 2002 13:49:29 -  1.11
+++ bsd.sys.mk  13 Mar 2003 15:24:56 -
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
 # for GCC:  http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.0.4/gcc_3.html#IDX143
 
 .if !defined(NO_WARNS)
+CFLAGS +=  -Wsystem-headers
 . if defined(WARNS)
 .  if ${WARNS} > 0
 .   if !defined(NO_WERROR)
%%%

Anyone objects to having this in?


Cheers,
-- 
Ruslan Ermilov  Sysadmin and DBA,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Sunbay Software AG,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251Simferopol, Ukraine

http://www.FreeBSD.org  The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com   Enabling The Information Age


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature