On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 01:43:59AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:11:30PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 06:15:07AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Brian Norris writes:
> > > >
> > > > 4. better ideas?
> > >
> > > Just send patches to remove -Werror i
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:11:30PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 06:15:07AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Brian Norris writes:
> > >
> > > 4. better ideas?
> >
> > Just send patches to remove -Werror in all architectures
> > as a tree sweep (and anywhere else where someone m
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 06:15:07AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Brian Norris writes:
> >
> > 4. better ideas?
>
> Just send patches to remove -Werror in all architectures
> as a tree sweep (and anywhere else where someone misguided add it)
In arch/sparc/ we have -Werror and this has never troubled
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 06:15:07AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Brian Norris writes:
> >
> > 4. better ideas?
>
> Just send patches to remove -Werror in all architectures
> as a tree sweep (and anywhere else where someone misguided add it)
I cited at least one example in which this was attempted b
Brian Norris writes:
>
> 4. better ideas?
Just send patches to remove -Werror in all architectures
as a tree sweep (and anywhere else where someone misguided add it)
Having -Werror anywhere in a shipping release is just plainly a bug,
as it makes it often impossible to build on newer gcc version
On Aug 15, 2014, at 9:34 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> (BTW, your mailer is creating some pretty long, unwrapped lines. I've
> rewrapped them when quoting below.)
Sorry about that. I'll try to remember to deal with it on my end.
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 08:36:07PM -0700, Mark D Rusta
Hi Mark,
(BTW, your mailer is creating some pretty long, unwrapped lines. I've
rewrapped them when quoting below.)
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 08:36:07PM -0700, Mark D Rustad wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2014, at 12:33 PM, Brian Norris
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 02:30:49AM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrot
Brian,
On Aug 15, 2014, at 12:33 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 02:30:49AM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
>> Funny that you bring this up because I have ~60 patches in my queue to
>> resolve several thousand of these warnings. Half of the patches
>> actually resolve warn
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 02:30:49AM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> Funny that you bring this up because I have ~60 patches in my queue to
> resolve several thousand of these warnings. Half of the patches
> actually resolve warnings that can be resolved and the other half
> implement compiler dia
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Lennart Sorensen
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 03:21:19PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
>> I'm interested in being able to build-test kernels on various
>> architectures while enabling extra warnings (make W=[123]). I'd like to
>> be able to finish the builds and s
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 03:21:19PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> I'm interested in being able to build-test kernels on various
> architectures while enabling extra warnings (make W=[123]). I'd like to
> be able to finish the builds and see all warnings, rather than seeing a
> failed build. However,
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Brian Norris
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm interested in being able to build-test kernels on various
> architectures while enabling extra warnings (make W=[123]). I'd like to
> be able to finish the builds and see all warnings, rather than seeing a
> failed build. Howev
Hi all,
I'm interested in being able to build-test kernels on various
architectures while enabling extra warnings (make W=[123]). I'd like to
be able to finish the builds and see all warnings, rather than seeing a
failed build. However, GCC's -Werror is incompatible with this. There is
plenty of c
13 matches
Mail list logo
