From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make -Werror optional Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 14:33:39 -0500 Message-ID: <20150221193339.GA17802@neilslaptop.think-freely.org> References: <09445d1715453b2eff4399da998717b967b829b3.1423739602.git.pmatilai@redhat.com> <20150212063820.436b2221@uryu.home.lan> <54DCBEB4.30005@redhat.com> <20150220175521.334a63c9@urahara> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150220175521.334a63c9@urahara> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 05:55:21PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:54:44 +0200 > Panu Matilainen wrote: > > > On 02/12/2015 04:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:13:22 +0200 > > > Panu Matilainen wrote: > > > > > >> This adds new CONFIG_RTE_ERROR_ON_WARNING config option to enable > > >> fail-on-warning compile behavior, defaulting to off. > > >> > > >> Failing build on warnings is a useful developer tool but its bad > > >> for release tarballs which can and do get built with newer > > >> compilers than what was used/available during development. Compilers > > >> routinely add new warnings so code which built silently with cc X > > >> might no longer do so with X+1. This doesn't make the existing code > > >> any more buggier and failing the build in this case does not help > > >> not help improve code quality of an already released version either. > > Hopefully distro's like RHEL will build with -Werror enabled > and not allow build to go through with errors. > Thats usually what we do, yes. Neil > >