| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140819184303.GT18411@ld-irv-0074> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:43:03 -0700 From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com> To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com> Subject: Re: Overriding -Werror On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 06:15:07AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com> writes: > > > > 4. better ideas? > > Just send patches to remove -Werror in all architectures > as a tree sweep (and anywhere else where someone misguided add it) I cited at least one example in which this was attempted but rejected. (Or at least, it was semi-deliberately stalled.) > Having -Werror anywhere in a shipping release is just plainly a bug, > as it makes it often impossible to build on newer gcc versions. I also feel it is misguided, for other reasons. But there are at least a few who seem to disagree. They seem to feel it is important/necessary for enforcing good practices during development. I'm not sure how to bridge the disagreement, other than to provide workarounds for disabling -Werror. I could try sending -Werror removal patches, but I'm not confident that will go over well. Brian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists