Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:45:15 +0200, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> If a package fails to build in a mass rebuild because -Werror was enabled >> then that's additional work for several people to fix something that may not >> have ever actually been broken. > > 99% of warnings will not lead to user visible bugs. Finding that remaining > 1% of bugs (warnings) takes more than 100x time than to fix the warnings. > > I base my -Werror recommendation on this assumption, YMMV. Nice argument. I agree wholeheartedly with your numbers and with the recommendation to use -Werror and as many -W___ options as you/upstream can bear. However, it does depend on the version of gcc you use, especially if you use some of the newer warning options. Not too long ago, coreutils was getting invalid warning/errors from F15's gcc 4.6.x. Luckily, the bug was fixed in gcc-4.7.x, so I opted to use the newer gcc and retain those rather aggressive warnings. Besides, they're enabled only when you configure coreutils with --enable-gcc-warnings. Whether to invest in enabling -Werror for all packages in a mass rebuild however is another question. There will be many build failures, and some will be unwarranted. Having non-upstream take time to avoid the warnings may not be productive, since there are many ways to avoid them, and the way you choose may not suit upstream. Also, do you want to invest in avoiding warnings that affect only test-related code? That said, if there are thick-skinned volunteers with the expertise and enough time/energy, enabling -Werror globally (or even in a few selected packages) and addressing failures would be great. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
