This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Should we continue to hold up 2.20 for -Wundef fixes?
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux dot org>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 22:13:18 -0400
- Subject: Re: Should we continue to hold up 2.20 for -Wundef fixes?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54073A95 dot 7000105 at redhat dot com> <20140903211832 dot F39382C39C9 at topped-with-meat dot com>
On 09/03/2014 05:18 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Unlike Joseph, I don't think any -Wundef fixes are especially
> risky--largely because of the ease of comparing .o files to convince
> ourselves each change is safe. But I don't have a strong opinion about
> which side of the release cut they land on. My previous recommendations
> about this were based on the notion of people taking the released source
> tree (perhaps some time in the future), seeing a zillion noisy warnings,
> and coming back to us thinking something Must Be Wrong (or, similarly, not
> noticing the messages that really did matter to their configuration when
> they were lost in a sea of distracting -Wundef warnings). But that is just
> one consideration, and a fairly weak one, compared to continued delay and
> other people's differing perceptions of the risk of further changes going
> in soon.
I take that as no sustained opposition to Joseph's worry about the delay
of the release.
In fact as the release delays it causes problems for our desirable rebase
for the lastest Fedora. So cutting it ASAP is in my best interest.
Given this and Joseph's comments I'm moving -Wundef out of the release
blockers list *but* making it a release blocker for 2.21 to turn it into