Re: Add -Werror to build_warnings

[Paul Schlie <schlie at comcast dot net>]

> From: Alan Modra <amodra@bigpond.net.au>
>> - and/or recommend that GCC-4.0 eliminate that frivolous warning by default.
> I'm not going to do any such thing.  I rather like the fact that gcc-4.0
> has more warnings, despite it causing some work to make our code warning
> free.  Case in point: Better analysis of uninitialized variables found
> two places in binutils where we really could use an uninitialized
> variable in corner cases.  It also warned about 4 or 5 other places that
> were not real problems.  That's a very good ratio.  I'll take 100 false
> positives if a compiler finds me one real error..

- Fully understand your position in general, however honestly question the
  utility of the specific warning: of a comparison between two pointers to
  otherwise equivalent rank data types which only in sign-ness; as it's not
  clear that such a comparison could ever lead to unintended consequences,
  as even arguably evidenced by the apparent intent to disable it, rather
  than be alerted of such comparisons by default (presumably as it's not
  perceived as likely helpful)?  However would very much appreciate an
  example to the contrary, as I'm obviously confused by it's purpose, as
  the sign-ness of a data type seems irrelevant when attempting to compare
  the addresses two otherwise compatible data types?

  (but not a big deal, as the warning may easily be disabled as desired)