This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [RFC] Make it easy to make --disable-werror the default for binutils
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 08:55:40 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Make it easy to make --disable-werror the default for binutils
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1400540452-19897-1-git-send-email-brobecker at adacore dot com> <20140527122615 dot GA29072 at adacore dot com> <20140527142205 dot GC6679 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org>
> > I was wondering if anyone had some time to think about this patch?
> We're all waiting for someone else to comment first. :)
Why does this sound familiar? ;-) Thanks for answering!
> I'm happy with the idea, but let's make development.sh a single
> line file. Does anyone seriously think it needs a (GDB) copyright or
> (GDB specific) comment?
On the GDB side, files without copyright notices have generally been
a source of extra work for me, so I tend to be a little more deliberate
and add one unless there is a reason I cannot. I also track the list
of all files in GDB that are known to be missing one so as to make sure
we don't let new files slip through the cracks.
That being said, it's explicitly said that the file must be legally
significant for us to require a copyright notice. I don't mind removing
it, as well as the gdb-specific comment, but what would be the reason
behind removing it? Is it getting in the way? What if, for instance,
I put the notice at the end of the file?
> BTW, a followup patch to bfd/Makefile.am should get rid of RELEASE.
... and use the new script instead? Although they would probably both
be toggled at the same time, I am not sure whether they serve the same
purpose. Or maybe you had something else in mind?