svn commit: samba r22731 - in branches/SAMBA_3_0/source: . tests
abartlet at samba.org
Tue May 8 01:55:05 GMT 2007
On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 21:31 -0400, derrell at samba.org wrote:
> Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> writes:
> > On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 13:37 -0400, derrell at samba.org wrote:
> >> By
> >> consistently testing for and using the warnings-are-errors flag, the problem
> >> is eliminated. During a developer build, readahead() is found to _not_ exist
> >> so the compilation works fine. During a production build, readahead() is
> >> found to exist and the compilation works fine since it doesn't use the
> >> warnings-are-errors flag.
> > This sounds like a disaster!
> > We shouldn't be gaining or loosing features just because we are in a
> > developer build. That way leads to madness, particularly if a user or
> > developer encounters a problem, then rebuilds with --enable-developer to
> > trace it down.
> IMO, it's worthwhile for developer builds to error upon missing declaration so
> I prefer the existing implementation which enables it for all developer
> builds. It should not, however, be enabled at the expense of not being able
> to do a compile with a developer build.
Are you saying that no header on your system declares readahead()? The
correct fix is to fix the missing declaration. As a subsequent check,
you could add a validation that for problematic functions that we
determine that a declaration is available *at all times*.
The whole point of the developer build is that issues like this are
found and fixed.
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc. http://redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20070508/b032a347/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical