On 12-09-2018 17:46:03 -0700, Matt Turner wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:11 PM Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:52 PM Matt Turner <matts...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:03 PM Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > Now, I could buy that -Werror turns NEW warnings into fatal errors, > > > > due to the use of a newer toolchain, since upstream probably didn't > > > > test with that toolchain and thus wouldn't have seen the warning. > > > > > > Yes, exactly. This is one of the major things people have said repeatedly. > > > > > > Werror makes moving gcc forward much more difficult. > > > > > > > Sure, but wouldn't a block on newer versions of gcc cause similar headaches? > > Sure...? Who is suggesting that? I'm not sure where you're going with this. > > With new GCC comes new warnings, and harmless as the vast majority are > they cause the build to break with Werror.
To illustrate harmless: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] The warning message already has it in it that it's just a pure guess. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
