From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4382 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2006 20:26:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 4340 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jan 2006 20:26:06 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:26:04 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EyERt-0003JX-RL; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:26:01 -0500 Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Turn on -Werror by default Message-ID: <20060115202601.GA12204@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200601081759.k08HxOxP007121@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060108222546.GA4147@nevyn.them.org> <200601082253.k08MrLY1000252@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060115170103.GA5830@nevyn.them.org> <200601151755.k0FHtSR9016305@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060115182055.GA8189@nevyn.them.org> <200601152004.k0FK41sV010809@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200601152004.k0FK41sV010809@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00182.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 09:04:01PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > This patch is a policy statement that the GDB developers agree with you > > on the importance of warning-free code, which will inconvenience you > > not at all, and me a great deal. Can you see where I'm coming from? > > Yes. But warning-free code used to be the policy back in the GCC 3 > days. I'm not aware that we dropped that policy; MAINTAINERS still > lists -Werror in the "Target ISA" section. When we started committing incomplete patches to address bits of GCC 4 warnings without regards for GCC 3 builds, we dropped this policy in practice. > > I maintain that the correct way to turn on -Werror is to first fix the > > warnings. As the developer who thinks -Werror is an important step > > forward, the burden is on you to make GDB warning-free on a reasonable > > set of platforms - I think we both agree on that already. I'm > > disputing your reasonable set of platforms, however. > > Since we also seem to agree that the "warn for pointer argument > passing or assignment with different signedness" warning from GCC 4 is > mostly pedantry, how about the attached patch, which adds > -Wno-pointer-sign" to the mix. > > I can add that bit first, and then when we've fixed the few remaining > warnings, we can enable -Werror. I think we do need to fix the pointer sign warnings eventually, as a code cleanliness issue, so perhaps this is a good time to do it. You've needled me enough this week that I'm actually rolling now :-) Give me a few days. BTW, if we were to go with your patch, wouldn't we would need to conditionalize the warning on an appropriate version of GCC? Or is there pre-existing magic for this in $build_warnings? I'd gotten it into my head that there was no way to turn these off. Nice to be wrong about that. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery