Nate Williams wrote: > > Anyway, if we're going to -Wall'ify the kernel (as we should) > > then we need to update sytle(9) to reflect that. > > > > In fact, style(9) should say: > > > > If at all possible, your code should compile without warnings > > when the gcc -Wall flag is given. > > I disagree. As has been shown many times in the past (and I suspect the > down-under constituent will show that at least a couple of the
I think you must mean the "Sydney-down-under constituent". There *is* a difference. 8-) > 'warnings' fixes will be wrong and hide bogus code), making -Wall a goal > causes people to cover up bad code with bad casts and such. > > '-Wall' is *NOT* a good design goal. Fixing warnings with bad casts is a problem, sure, but asking people to write code without casts (if possible) that will compile cleanly with -Wall is a reasonable thing to ask IMO. In my experience, the resulting code tends to be more portable across architectures with different pointer/long sizes and endian-ness. Just my 0.02, and I hate style(9) anyway. -- John Birrell - j...@cimlogic.com.au; j...@freebsd.org http://www.cimlogic.com.au/ CIMlogic Pty Ltd, GPO Box 117A, Melbourne Vic 3001, Australia +61 418 353 137 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
