On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 07:07:43PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > On 10/21/24 18:32, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 at 16:27, Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > looking at the redness of the output of `make W=1` here is the question: > > > isn't it a good time to enable `make W=1` by default. Yes, I understand > > > the impact, but at least we can do it mandatory for a _new_ code > > > submitted to > > > U-Boot, right? > > > > > > Ideally I would have what Linux kernel has for a few releases already, > > > i.e. > > > Werror by default and getting close to make a clean builds with that and > > > make W=1` at least against default configurations (yeah, with U-Boot > > > there is > > > probably no default, but sandbox one). > > > > Warnings should be warnings...if you would like to enable it for CI > > that is fine by me, but the U-Boot makefile shouldn't do it. It > > defeats the purpose of having a distinction between errors and > > warnings. > > > > Regards, > > Simon > > Most contributors don't have access to our CI. > > doc/develop/sending_patches.rst does not indicate that patches leading > to build warnings won't be accepted. > > We should at least amend the documentation.
Yes, please, someone. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
