Could we modify the pragma to include the maximum error number that is known to be supported, and make it a compiler policy for new warnings that might impact existing code to have monotonic numbering?
On Dec 15, 2017 10:48, "Mike Hommey" <mh+mozi...@glandium.org> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 04:40:42PM +0100, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Tigercosmos sent a patch today adding #![deny(warnings)] to a bunch of > > crates[1]. > > > > Just wanted to give a heads-up / ask whether there's any objection to > > the change before going ahead and r+ it. Does it sound reasonable to > > everyone? It may make the servo-with-rust-nightly build fail a bit > > earlier, but probably that's good, actually. > > From a Firefox point of view, #![deny(warnings)] is already causing > problems, and I don't think it's a good idea to have that in source, > essentially for the same reason it's not a good idea to have -Werror set > by default on C/C++ projects. > > Now, to be more specific about what problems we're already seeing with > #![deny(warnings)], they are around the fact that when you bisect, the > build fails on older code that triggers warnings that didn't exist in > the stable rust compiler back when the code was written, but that do in > the newer compiler, which you're using while bisecting. > > I'd actually go as far as saying that #![deny(warnings)] shouldn't even > exist in rust at all for this reason, and CIs should be setting the > equivalent to -Werror (which I think -D warnings is). > > Mike > _______________________________________________ > dev-servo mailing list > dev-servo@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-servo > _______________________________________________ dev-servo mailing list dev-servo@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-servo
