On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 18:07 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Pavel Roskin <pro...@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. Sure enough, forcing developers to keep the code warning-free could lead to ugly fixes that are worse that the original warnings. However, keeping the build system quiet will help more people notice the warnings. Somebody will come with a nice fix eventually. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
