| 1 |
> On Sep 12, 2018, at 6:55 PM, Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
>> On 2018-09-12 16:50, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>> There is also the case where we want these warnings to block |
| 5 |
>> installation, because the risk of there being a problem is too great. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I really disagree with that. So many devs have already said multiple |
| 8 |
> times in this thread that "-Werror" is only turning existing warnings |
| 9 |
> into fatal errors but "-Werror" itself doesn't add any new checks and |
| 10 |
> more often requires "-O3" to be useful. |
| 11 |
The way that compilers work is that the warnings are generated in the front end while the optimization level affects the backend. That means that -O3 has no effect on the code that does error generation. This remark about -O3 being needed to make -Werror useful is just plain wrong. |
| 12 |
> So let's turn this around: Please show us a *real* case within Gentoo |
| 13 |
> where "-Werror" prevented a real problem which wouldn't otherwise being |
| 14 |
> noticed. E.g. show us a package which was merged on user's system, |
| 15 |
> replacing a working previous version of that package causing *real* |
| 16 |
> problems which could have been prevented if package would have set |
| 17 |
> "-Werror". |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Unless you can do that we don't really need to discuss this. Simply |
| 20 |
> because everyone interested in "-Werror" *can* set that flag via CFLAGS, |
| 21 |
> even just per package, whereas the majority, not interested in this, |
| 22 |
> cannot do the same to filter "-Werror". Nobody advocating for "-Werror" |
| 23 |
> replied to that fact yet. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> -- |
| 27 |
> Regards, |
| 28 |
> Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 29 |
> C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |
| 30 |
> |
Archives