On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 24 February 2016 at 19:11, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> hmm, we did need this at one point in time for the packed structs used >> for shader instruction assembly.. maybe newer gcc doesn't warn about >> this (since it mostly seems related to a bug in older gcc versions)? >> I guess since (afaiu) android provides it's own compiler per android >> release, I suppose we don't have to worry about someone building w/ >> any random old gcc version, so I don't see any issue dropping this for >> the android build. >> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org> wrote: >>> Enabling this warning doesn't generate any warnings with gcc, but is an >>> unknown option for clang, so drop it. >>> >>> Cc: Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org> >> >> Acked-by: Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> >> > It would be nice to keep things aligned between both builds. Rob H/Rob > C any objections if we drop it from the autotools one ? > Alternatively can we please keep it, commented out, with the above > note as comment in the code.
Without remembering which gcc version I was using at the time that I added that, I am less confident about removing it from it from autotools build. I guess if android change was a comment-out rather than a delete, at least w/ git-blame you could more easily trace it back to a commit msg.. (I wonder if there is a clever way to, perhaps via patchwork, go from a commit-id back to mailing list discussion?) BR, -R _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
