From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Jaeger To: Robert Lipe Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: "introduce no new bootstrap warning" criteria. was: Loop iv debugging patch Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:09:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <14941.2331.949024.263257@taniwha.paradise.net.nz> <20010112075537.A8978@rjlhome.sco.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-01/msg00799.html >>>>> Robert Lipe writes: > About a recent patch, Andreas Jaeger wrote: >> Bootstrapping gcc I get: >> /cvs/gcc/gcc/doloop.c:60: warning: static declaration for `doloop_condition_get' follows non-static > For some compilers, this is a hard error and breaks the build. > I'm not going to fuss about the commit in question. But in recent > years, a LOT of effort has been spent on getting the warning level in > a full bootstrap down to a manageable number. (Thanks, Kaveh!) It's > easy to watch that number decay as code is added back in that isn't held > to the same standards of zero warnings. Yeah, when major new libraries > come it I can see it taking some time for them to stabilize on all > combinations of builds, but we're consistently seeing defects introduced > into tree that gcc itself would have told us about. > Is it time, in the name of quality/damage control in this project, to > make it an acceptance criteria for any commit that it introduce no new > warnings? I don't think we can demand absolutly no new warnings. But we could classify the warnings and demand that some warnings (like the one I reported and fixed) are forbidden but others are ok (e.g. signed/unsigned compares). Another problem is also that you might not get any warning on the platform you're bootstrapping on but would get a warning if you bootstrap, e.g. on a 64 bit platform instead of a 32 bit platform. I'm in favor of decreasing the number of warnings, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger SuSE Labs aj@suse.de private aj@arthur.inka.de http://www.suse.de/~aj