This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: werror fallout for cross-builds (was: Re: [BUILDROBOT][PATCH] Fix mmix (unused variable))
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- Cc: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>, Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw at lug-owl dot de>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:22:11 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: werror fallout for cross-builds (was: Re: [BUILDROBOT][PATCH] Fix mmix (unused variable))
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140718020136 dot GT21544 at lug-owl dot de> <alpine dot BSF dot 2 dot 02 dot 1407180256200 dot 66146 at arjuna dot pair dot com> <20140718124444 dot GU21544 at lug-owl dot de> <alpine dot BSF dot 2 dot 02 dot 1407182023490 dot 6913 at arjuna dot pair dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1407221456290 dot 3531 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <alpine dot BSF dot 2 dot 02 dot 1407221017320 dot 68621 at arjuna dot pair dot com> <107903C5-B7A0-46F9-A57A-99EF1C823F65 at comcast dot net>
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > *Developers* (or rather, people cross-building non-released gcc
> > source in their usual setup) don't use the fairly old or even
> > broken host gcc versions that can be expected in use in the
> > general public (well, the users that still want to build gcc
> > from releases and not use pre-built binaries).
(Hey, I proved that false myself and stated as much, see the
"But, the above..." rebuttal half-way through my post!)
> :-) Speak for yourself. I do cross, I deliver cross, and we
> just use the same old /bin/gcc that everyone else uses. And, we
> might well deliver on OSes other than the one released last
> week. In my case, /bin/gcc is 4.4.7. Though, I usually develop
> on 4.6.3 and 4.8.2. So, what I want is software that builds and
> works. I object to any patch that causes gcc to not build.
Mike, you miss the point of my post, and the patch too. Maybe I
was unclear. There seems to be violent agreement...
First, about the effect on the patch, regarding code deliveries
like your case above, you don't deliver DEV-PHASE = experimental
code (hopefully, with all the default redundant internal testing
it does). More likely, you deliver releases, in which this
developer-phase testing wouldn't be enabled.
The intent of the patch was to help avoiding the *GCC developer*
situation where a person patches a lot of targets but in his
sanity-build misses out on introducing valid warnings about a
typo-level warning, exactly like the commit from which this
The patch worked as intended, but as I mentioned (apparently
ambiguously enough), that intent was based on a false pretense
that most targets *do* work with -Werror. The fallout is
actually (still) overwhelming. You definitely wanted to make
sure I didn't miss that last point. You don't have to worry
about that, never needed.
(I did mention breaking host gcc versions overlapping those you
mention - including quotes of identical breakages!)
I posted the patch on the off-chance that there actually *is* a
later version in which all invalid warnings are gone. Note that
I didn't actually ask for approval. I did ask for a host gcc
version where builds with --enable-werror-always work!