From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13207 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2006 20:32:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 13198 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Dec 2006 20:32:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:32:27 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-229-248-161.inter.net.il [84.229.248.161]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id GLM44388 (AUTH halo1); Mon, 4 Dec 2006 22:31:50 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:32:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20061204182442.GB11343@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:24:42 -0800) Subject: Re: Set --disable-werror by default again for the release? Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20061204182442.GB11343@adacore.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-12/txt/msg00026.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:24:42 -0800 > From: Joel Brobecker > > Because C compilers vary a lot in the warnings they emit, and newer > compilers always find newer warnings, I am starting to think that > we might want to produce all our released with --disable-werror by > default. More work for me, but less hassle for the users... > > What does everyone think? I think you should leave it as it is for the pretest duration, so we could catch as many of these problems as we could, and then use "--disable-werror" in the actual release.