https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56692
--- Comment #13 from Zeb Figura z.figura12@gmail.com --- (In reply to Aida Jonikienė from comment #10)
(In reply to Zeb Figura from comment #9)
We'll look into a solution for this.
I took the time to solve the wine-staging warnings (which allows -Werror to work) and tried to submit the patches for them in the wine-devel mailing list but they got rejected because they "are pretty much a waste of time for everyone involved" and "Compilation warnings can be fixed when patches are rewritten for upstreaming" (is there a way to get those fixes in staging without moving the affected patchsets upstream (which doesn't really work for esync anyway)?)
Assuming the patches can't be merged, the only other option I can think of is just disabling the relevant warnings completely (which might introduce other bugs)
Yes. Fixing warnings creates more work for us and it's pointless when these patches are going to need to be rewritten anyway. It's more efficient to take care of them when the patches are upstreamed.
It's especially pointless to fix compiler warnings in a patch set that can't even be upstreamed but instead needs to be replaced (like eventfd_synchronization).
Bottom line is, wine-staging patches invariably have more serious problems than compile warnings. Don't build wine-staging with -Werror.
That GCC has chosen to promote some warnings to errors makes this a bit of a special case.