[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/devel/cmph
On 10/12/2012 19:59, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
John Marino<netbsd%marino.st@localhost> writes:
Okay, let me get this straight.
This Werror was set FOR YEARS and didn't come up with any
problems on existing compilers. You seem to be saying that by
turning it off now, suddenly new problems will magically appear
that affects all these GCC 3.0 - 4.4 systems fatally (or
Yes, these are new problems, and they must be attributed to compilers.
Yes, it is possible for them to affect all systems fatally, even those
using older compilers.
I'm am trying to understand your point of view, but I just can't buy
this. Code is code, and it's constant. Any problems it has, it always
had. The dynamic component is what Werror checks. It adds more and
more checks, so an existing "problem" might get revealed years later
with a newer compiler. To call some of these problems is a misnomer,
they are simply, "Hey, something may be amiss which may be caused by a
logic bug". These are development error warnings, not release warnings.
Something that passed contemporary checks for years is not considered
broken just because a new compiler generates a "hey look at this"
warning. The job to find bugs in the software is upstream. It's not
pkgsrc's job to flush them out. It happens as a side effect.
"-Werror" didn't appear out of blue, there're reasons why the flag
exists at all. Same reasons apply to existence of compiler warnings.
It is possible not to include any diagnostics into compiler. I wonder
why people care of those pesky warning messages and their clarity at all.
Just imagine how life would be easier if all package would build!
It doesn't matter that some of them wouldn't run because they can't find
needed library or they don't contain all files they need. All of them
would build instead!
Right. Once the developer is certain his product is release quality, he
can turn off all the warning switches. That's why you have development
settings and release settings. Werror is a development setting.
Are you in favor of grepping all makefiles and patches to see
what packages are removing -Werror and reworking them? Because
that is the logical conclusion to your stance.
Yes, exactly. Packages should build with -Werror set, if they supported it.
Those that don't build should be fixed rather than their problems swept
under the rug. Removing -Werror may only be a temporary measure, a hack,
it is not a solution in any case.
Well, if you feel SO strongly about it, I suppose you can disable
BUILDLINK_TRANSFORM when it tries to remove -Werror and see how many
packages break on the next bulkbuild and fix all of them. Likely
patches are removing it too, but it all seems like a giant waste of time
to me. Others have the exact opposite opinion of yours regarding the
use of Werror, so how can this be reconciled?
Main Index |
Thread Index |