| 1 |
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:11 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:52 PM Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:03 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > Now, I could buy that -Werror turns NEW warnings into fatal errors, |
| 7 |
> > > due to the use of a newer toolchain, since upstream probably didn't |
| 8 |
> > > test with that toolchain and thus wouldn't have seen the warning. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Yes, exactly. This is one of the major things people have said repeatedly. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Werror makes moving gcc forward much more difficult. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Sure, but wouldn't a block on newer versions of gcc cause similar headaches? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Sure...? Who is suggesting that? I'm not sure where you're going with this. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
With new GCC comes new warnings, and harmless as the vast majority are |
| 20 |
they cause the build to break with Werror. |
Archives