On Sun, 2018-04-01 at 22:40 +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Sunday 01 April 2018 14:32:26 Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 12:05:40PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > Command line option -Werror is dangerous as it could cause > > > problems for > > > compiling applications in future. Once gcc introduces a new > > > warning or > > > change logic for existing warnings then compilation of existing > > > application via gcc could throw a new warning. > > > > > > As -Werror makes all warnings fatal, it makes applications not > > > compilable. -Werror makes sense only for specific gcc versions > > > against > > > which was application tested to compile correctly. > > > > > > Attached patch adds a new warning when -Werror command line > > > option is > > > enabled. It warns user that usage of -Werror can be dangerous. > > > > While I love this patch in principle... > > > > All patches need to be bootstrapped and regression tested. Did > > you? > > Yes! Tested and it successfully failed on libgomp bootstrap part. > > cc1: error: command line option ‘-Werror’ is dangerous; in future > newly introduced non-fatal warnings can cause fatal errors [-Werror] > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
The patch sets: dc->warning_as_error_requested = value; before issuing the warning_at, and hence the warning is itself affected and treated as an error, making -Werror unusable, and thus forcing people to turn it off. I'm working on the assumption, based on today's date [1], that this is the intended behavior of the patch? My apologies if I'm misunderstanding. Dave > > On what target? > > x86_64-linux-gnu > > > And I think a feature as big as this one isn't suitable for stage > > 4. > > > > > > Segher > > [1] it's been almost 12 hours
