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" wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 04:40:42PM +0100, Emilio
On 12/15/2017 05:47 PM, Mike Hommey 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 c
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 re
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
earli
4 matches
Mail list logo