From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 012A2ADBA for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:08:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2015 04:03:33 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,565,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="651181770" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.243.20.46]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2015 04:08:36 -0800 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:08:34 +0025 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:08:34 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Panu Matilainen Message-ID: <20150212120834.GC10216@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <09445d1715453b2eff4399da998717b967b829b3.1423739602.git.pmatilai@redhat.com> <20150212112518.GB10216@bricha3-MOBL3> <54DC964B.3050709@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54DC964B.3050709@redhat.com> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Make -Werror optional X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:08:39 -0000 On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 02:02:19PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On 02/12/2015 01:25 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > >On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:13:22PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > >>This adds new CONFIG_RTE_ERROR_ON_WARNING config option to enable > >>fail-on-warning compile behavior, defaulting to off. > >> > >>Failing build on warnings is a useful developer tool but its bad > >>for release tarballs which can and do get built with newer > >>compilers than what was used/available during development. Compilers > >>routinely add new warnings so code which built silently with cc X > >>might no longer do so with X+1. This doesn't make the existing code > >>any more buggier and failing the build in this case does not help > >>not help improve code quality of an already released version either. > > > >This can already be achieve by passing EXTRA_CFLAGS='-Wno-error' into the > >build command. I don't like changing the default option here. Better to > >instead document how to disable the warning flags if necessary. > > Well, optimally it would only default to off in released versions, which is > where the Werror behavior is just annoying without being useful. This I can agree with. /Bruce > > For a practical example of how silly this can be: just got a build failure > with 1.8 due to "variable set but not used" warnings, because gcc 5 is > "smarter" and finds couple of cases older versions did not. > So everybody using gcc 5 to build the just-released 1.8 will be required to > hunt down and pass in that extra disabler, for no good reason. > > - Panu - >