| 1 |
On 14/05/12 23:42, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
>>> I personally think that if an upstream says that no warnings must be |
| 3 |
>>> produced by the code, and a developer should look at them before |
| 4 |
>>> declaring any warnings safe, then that is best followed. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Upstream does not need to take into account warnings produced by |
| 7 |
>> compilers for lesser known architectures, as explained above. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> These warnings could be harmless or introduce silent breakage. The user |
| 10 |
> often can't tell. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
You can have breakage without any warnings being emitted, and you can |
| 13 |
have warnings that result in no breakage whatsoever. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Furthermore, -Werror on Gentoo makes zero sense; portage will already |
| 16 |
produce a QA notice with warnings that have the potential to result in |
| 17 |
breakage. -Werror is not needed. |
Archives