linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] MIPS: Kbuild: remove -Werror

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] MIPS: Kbuild: remove -Werror
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 10:34:36 +0300
Cc: David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, MIPS Mailing List <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>, MTD Maling List <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :content-type:x-mailer:mime-version; bh=4dx8ECKyeY/p99+ZQuaB5XCz8zsx60Voaxr+w6/5O1k=; b=pYDtzSsmMfHyPd6UTKHiB9AprZ5E+3/uy8OlBbBx3mqwdnOg9Q+aqXLTgt13mHTHhV cFHoTFPPtTCz2wg8Wg4sCt3eZbODL1+Jek5m9iEg6embSwN6s1n9XxYy7NYzWdNvBS6c u2FjCZ9y+4tUSiFAZNh6k5BFod/4h+rRWakDvErAU0XV/oc+cnNLKIQ2pvsGBkSVmKi6 czZRZOG3ynZP2pHGO/HMmDKdxBQbMkioAyoCQtx6SaFtXKF4ACVh7p5R++KB7CjfD5mo SaNfuLoNUP2O89l6OsVNeYRDBagyDZ7BWUC71vNpWeW7L/uZ5Dy5CK1zNbY9ACdZUi1D veKw==
In-reply-to: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1205060754390.19691@eddie.linux-mips.org>
References: <1335534510-12573-1-git-send-email-dedekind1@gmail.com> <4F9AD14E.9060008@gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.2.00.1205060754390.19691@eddie.linux-mips.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Sun, 2012-05-06 at 08:04 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, David Daney wrote:
> 
> > > MIPS build fails with the standard W=1 Kbuild switch with because of the
> > > -Werror gcc switch.
> > > 
> > > This patch removes the gcc switch to make W=1 work. Mips is the only
> > > architecture I know which does not build with W=1 and this upsets my 
> > > aiaiai
> > > scripts. And in general, you never know which warnings newer versions of 
> > > gcc
> > > will start emiting so having -Werror by default is not the best idea.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy<artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > I think the warning messages are enough, we don't need to break things.
> 
>  I disagree.  People generally don't fix their broken code just because it 
> triggers warnings.  The cases where GCC is genuinely confused are the 
> minority -- and even if so, chances are the human reader of that code will 
> also be.

Aggressive opinion, nothing more. A patch which fixes the real issue a
better way would be way more respectful.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>