Re: [PATCH] Build system improvement

["Yoshinori K. Okuji" <okuji@enbug.org>]

On Monday 13 April 2009 14:03:01 Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 18:07 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>
> > Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:24:49 -0400
> >
> > > On Sat, 2009-04-11 at 08:29 -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote:
> > >> If we could build with -Werror, then it wouldn't be so hard to find
> > >> the warnings since the build would abort...
> > >
> > > It's also possible to redirect stderr to a file so that the build
> > > doesn't stumble on the first warning.
> >
> > I'm iffy about this.
>
> I meant that "warning hunters" can use it and have a choice what
> warnings to fix.  I didn't suggest stderr redirection to be part of the
> build system.
>
> > There are some hard warnings to get rid of.
> >
> > For example when building certain grub-* tools there is no way
> > to get around the current redefinitions we get of LONG_MAX and
> > friends.  (one comes in via grub headers, then the stdio.h include
> > gets us the system definition, we can't use ifdef guards because
> > the grub headers come in and define things first)
>
> I would explore the possibility of introducing GRUB_LONG_MAX.  GRUB
> already duplicates a lot of libc definitions.

Yes. It is bad and dangerous to use the same symbols as libc. I think I have 
written this in the wiki:

http://grub.enbug.org/CodingStyle

Regards,
Okuji