On Mon, 12.10.2009 at 18:37:38 +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Ulrich Spörlein writes:
> > Is there some easy way to do cross-compiles (like make universe) in just
> > one of the subdirs? That would help tremendously.
>
> % cd /usr/src
> % make toolchain TARGET=powerpc
> % make buildenv TARGE
Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
> The "default" would be the setting inherited by, eg,
> src/bin/Makefile.inc. This already has a WARNS=6, are you saying that
> debugging stuff under bin/ has been made more difficult by that change?
It certainly can be, yes. Although admittedly I don't spend a lot of
time
Hi Doug,
On Mon, 12.10.2009 at 16:49:47 -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
> > Dear -hackers,
> >
> > I would like you to give me your thoughts on the attached patch. There
> > are no functional changes, what I'm trying to do is introduce WARNS?=6
> > for all top-level Makefiles a
Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
> Dear -hackers,
>
> I would like you to give me your thoughts on the attached patch. There
> are no functional changes, what I'm trying to do is introduce WARNS?=6
> for all top-level Makefiles and override that on a subdir basis.
>
> Why the churn? Because I think it stic
Ulrich Spörlein writes:
> Is there some easy way to do cross-compiles (like make universe) in just
> one of the subdirs? That would help tremendously.
% cd /usr/src
% make toolchain TARGET=powerpc
% make buildenv TARGET=powerpc
%% cd usr.sbin/rwhod
%% make
('make buildenv' starts a subshell)
DE
On Mon, 12.10.2009 at 12:34:40 +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Ulrich Spörlein writes:
> > Comments? Committers?
>
> You can set WARNS to 4 for rwhod, since we don't do Alpha any more.
>
> (actually, you can set it to 6, but 4 is what was already there)
Is there some easy way to do cross-co
Gabor Kovesdan writes:
> Yep, I understand that but what I'm saying is that once we are dealing
> with such a big patch, it would be nice to elaborate the highest WARNS
> level of each utility and set them accordingly, which doesn't require
> too much extra effort as opposed to making all of them
Dag-Erling Smørgrav escribió:
Gabor Kovesdan writes:
What I noticed is that the patch sets WARNS?=0 for a lot of utilities,
which actually have higher WARNS-compliance.
WARNS level 0 is the current default. All Ulrich's patch does is
reverse the logic so that WARNS is 6 by default an
Ulrich Spörlein writes:
> Comments? Committers?
You can set WARNS to 4 for rwhod, since we don't do Alpha any more.
(actually, you can set it to 6, but 4 is what was already there)
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.
Gabor Kovesdan writes:
> What I noticed is that the patch sets WARNS?=0 for a lot of utilities,
> which actually have higher WARNS-compliance.
WARNS level 0 is the current default. All Ulrich's patch does is
reverse the logic so that WARNS is 6 by default and anything that didn't
already set WAR
Ed Schouten escribió:
Hi Ulrich,
* Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
Comments? Committers?
Wouldn't it better to address the root of the problem while there? ;-)
What I noticed is that the patch sets WARNS?=0 for a lot of utilities,
which actually have higher WARNS-compliance. Even if we do
On Sun, 11.10.2009 at 19:09:18 +0200, Ed Schouten wrote:
> Hi Ulrich,
>
> * Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
> > Comments? Committers?
>
> Wouldn't it better to address the root of the problem while there? ;-)
It sure would, but someone[TM] would have to fix all problems for a
top-level dir in a short ti
Hi Ulrich,
* Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
> Comments? Committers?
Wouldn't it better to address the root of the problem while there? ;-)
Index: number.c
===
--- number.c(revision 197852)
+++ number.c(working copy)
@@ -88,9 +88,7
Dear -hackers,
I would like you to give me your thoughts on the attached patch. There
are no functional changes, what I'm trying to do is introduce WARNS?=6
for all top-level Makefiles and override that on a subdir basis.
Why the churn? Because I think it sticks out more, if there's a WARNS=0
in
14 matches
Mail list logo
