Contributing FreeBSD/aarch64 support
Ed Maste
emaste@freebsd.org
Mon Feb 9 14:45:00 GMT 2015
Thanks for taking a look Andrew.
I wasn't specifically looking for review on these changes yet (they
admittedly have a few rough edges), but rather the meta issue of
whether a collection of trivial or nearly trivial changes like this
can be accepted without paperwork.
On the issues you raised:
On 8 February 2015 at 23:12, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Modifying configure directly is not a good idea.
Yes, this is just an artifact of the history of this change; most
recently it existed as a patch in our ports tree, applied to the
binutils tarball after extraction. I just applied that patch as-is to
my tree.
> Also if you need
> -Wno-uninitialized, it might make sense to figure out better patches
> for those places where unitialized warnings happen.
Will do.
> And having -Wno-unused-function seems wrong no matter what. It might
> mean you need some extra #if/#endif around some code which not used
> for freebsd.
It looks like the flag was added due to warnings for
set_error_{kind,message}, which are unused on any platform. Perhaps
GCC does not warn about unused static inline functions.
More information about the Binutils
mailing list