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 <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.
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 _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
