From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vladimir Kondratiev Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath: wil6210: Fix build error Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 18:52:38 +0300 Message-ID: <5330916.8NnOO4SNAp@lx-vladimir> References: <1374374808-12768-1-git-send-email-Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> <51EBFABB.8080701@lwfinger.net> <1559869.yu0fjJXVeX@balsa> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Larry Finger , , , , , Stable To: Return-path: Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com ([65.197.215.72]:38584 "EHLO sabertooth01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755749Ab3GUPxE (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Jul 2013 11:53:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1559869.yu0fjJXVeX@balsa> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sunday, July 21, 2013 09:35:40 AM Thomas Fjellstrom wrote: > If it helps, I'm running a fresh install of Debian Sid with gcc 4.8.1. I've > noticed that each newer successive version of gcc gets more strict with what > code it accepts without warning, or error. A lot of my only somewhat old code > tends to have a lot more warnings. Especially that signedness warning. Yes, this is the case; I have 4.7.3 > > It also looked like that that driver or section of the kernel was compiling > with -Werror. I haven't verrified that but I remember seeing "treating all > warnings as errors" at one point. > You are right, I have this in Makefile: (if one turn on extra warnings with -W, there will be lots of false alarms, that's why this ifeq()) ifeq (, $(findstring -W,$(EXTRA_CFLAGS))) subdir-ccflags-y += -Werror endif Thanks, Vladimir