This is the mail archive of the java-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java 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]

Re: [cp-patches] cp-tools: fix build options

From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
To: Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>
Cc: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, classpath-patches at gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 16 Dec 2006 09:02:53 -0700
Subject: Re: [cp-patches] cp-tools: fix build options
References: <17794.53256.635744.905696@zebedee.pink> <1166276475.3144.7.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <17796.5474.77250.593368@zebedee.pink> <1166285604.3144.22.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org>
Reply-to: tromey at redhat dot com

>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> writes:

Mark> It seems better to fix the warnings. Often they point to slightly wrong
Mark> or confusing code.

Yeah, that would be better.  However...

The shell-based build is not the best place to be looking for
warnings.  In my eclipse-based build I see nearly 10,000 warnings.
That would make for pretty big and noisy build logs.

Also I note that in lib/ we do select only a few warnings.  Perhaps
the same set ought to be used in tools/.

Mark> So, -w is accepted by your version of ecj?

No, -w is translated by the gcj-ish ecj front end that is being
invoked in the libjava build.  So the patch in question is actually
specific to gcj.

Tom

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [cp-patches] cp-tools: fix build options
  - From: Andrew Haley

References:
- cp-tools: fix build options
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: [cp-patches] cp-tools: fix build options
  - From: Mark Wielaard
- Re: [cp-patches] cp-tools: fix build options
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: [cp-patches] cp-tools: fix build options
  - From: Mark Wielaard

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]