On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 05:36:30 +0200, Sam Ravnborg said: > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 06:37:28PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > With -Werror-implicit-function-declaration we are getting an immediate > > compile error instead. > This patch broke (-rc1): ... > I did not try other architectures. We need to fix the allnoconfig cases > at least for the popular architectures before applying this patch > otherwise it will create too much trouble/noise. What source files did it break on, and with what error message? And is there a reason to focus on 'allnoconfig', or do the other canned config targets (allyes, allmod, rand, and so on) matter too?
Attachment:
pgpW6a20U3NQ0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [2.6 patch] add -Werror-implicit-function-declaration to CFLAGS
- From: Milton Miller <[email protected]>
- Re: [2.6 patch] add -Werror-implicit-function-declaration to CFLAGS
- From: Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]>
- Re: [2.6 patch] add -Werror-implicit-function-declaration to CFLAGS
- References:
- [2.6 patch] add -Werror-implicit-function-declaration to CFLAGS
- From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
- Re: [2.6 patch] add -Werror-implicit-function-declaration to CFLAGS
- From: Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]>
- [2.6 patch] add -Werror-implicit-function-declaration to CFLAGS
- Prev by Date: Re: Re: Strange Linux behaviour with blocking syscalls and stop signals+SIGCONT
- Next by Date: Re: Re: Strange Linux behaviour with blocking syscalls and stop signals+SIGCONT
- Previous by thread: Re: [2.6 patch] add -Werror-implicit-function-declaration to CFLAGS
- Next by thread: Re: [2.6 patch] add -Werror-implicit-function-declaration to CFLAGS
- Index(es):
 |