This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
| Other format: | [Raw text] | |
"Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> writes: > > Looking at the commandline, I wonder why we do not pass -Werror to > > this? I'll send a patch for the actual warning later but would > > welcome if somebody fixes the Makefiles to actually use -Werror > > here. Or is this on purpose? > > Andreas > > Yes, at the time I added -Werror I did that on purpose. There was a > lot of resistance to adding that flag and I felt I was personally > being asked to fix any and all errors that resulted. So I only > activated it on "host" and "build" files, because those are easier to > build in a cross compiler and I could preemptively fix a lot of the > problems myself. To trigger "target" file warnings, i.e. to build > libgcc.a in a cross-compiler, you also have to build binutils and have > the appropriate headers for each target. I didn't have the time to do > that for all targets (or even just one on each cpu) and preemptively > fix those warnings. So I took things as far as I could. Thanks for the background. > Since then there seems to be more acceptance of -Werror, and it may be > that we can count on the community at large to fix their own warnings > on their respective targets. So there's no reason we can't use > -Werror on target files too. It's just a matter of someone > volunteering to champion it and fix some of the most common problems. > (I don't have the time myself to be point person.) There will > undoubtedly be some naysayers, but I think the feasibility of using > -Werror so far has been self-evident. > > If you are interested I would encourage you to proceed. I'll pitch in > as time permits and back you up if you decide to give it a go. Do you have a patch? In that case I would suggest that some of us apply it locally and try to kill those warnings that remain - and let's then decide whether it's ok to add it per default. Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, 90429 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |