Re: "introduce no new bootstrap warning" criteria. was: Loop iv debugging patch

[Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>]

>>>>> Robert Lipe writes:

 > About a recent patch, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> Bootstrapping gcc I get:
>> /cvs/gcc/gcc/doloop.c:60: warning: static declaration for `doloop_condition_get' follows non-static

 > For some compilers, this is a hard error and breaks the build.


 > I'm not going to fuss about the commit in question.  But in recent
 > years, a LOT of effort has been spent on getting the warning level in
 > a full bootstrap down to a manageable number.  (Thanks, Kaveh!)  It's
 > easy to watch that number decay as code is added back in that isn't held
 > to the same standards of zero warnings.  Yeah, when major new libraries
 > come it I can see it taking some time for them to stabilize on all
 > combinations of builds, but we're consistently seeing defects introduced
 > into tree that gcc itself would have told us about.

 > Is it time, in the name of quality/damage control in this project, to
 > make it an acceptance criteria for any commit that it introduce no new
 > warnings?

I don't think we can demand absolutly no new warnings.  But we could
classify the warnings and demand that some warnings (like the one I
reported and fixed) are forbidden but others are ok
(e.g. signed/unsigned compares).

Another problem is also that you might not get any warning on the
platform you're bootstrapping on but would get a warning if you
bootstrap, e.g. on a 64 bit platform instead of a 32 bit platform.

I'm in favor of decreasing the number of warnings,
Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj