On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 16:55 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > Nicholas Miell wrote: > > I'd argue that any upstream package which includes -Werror by default is > > broken, considering how often gcc warnings change. > > And I argue that we apparently must come to a state where -Werror is > enabled automatically. The current state, aggravated by adding -Wall, > is that warnings are ignored. The result: bugs the compiler finds are > no fixed. I even found one case where the _FORTIFY_SOURCE magic found a > buffer overflow and the maintainer hasn't seen it. > > It is crucial that packages are changed to have zero warnings. > Otherwise these bugs remain unnoticed since people think warnings are OK > and don't care. The "apparent" part is that using -Werror is the only > way to do this. Without enforcement people _think_ there are more > important things to do than fixing warnings. > > Yes, it might mean that an update to a new gcc version means required > changes. But guess what? Whenever a warning pops up there is likely a > good reason for it and it is worthwhile spending time on it. Just like > all these signed vs unsigned warnings in gcc 4. They almost all the > time warrant looking at the code. Nothing stops you from doing internal builds with -Werror and then fixing all the warnings before you make a release. However, when you ship software that won't compile, your end users are either going to remove -Werror and rebuild or they're going to switch to something that works out-of-the-metaphorical-box. You've gained nothing. -- Nicholas Miell <nmiell@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
