lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] kbuild: Add extra gcc checks
    On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 10:34:57PM -0500, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
    > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 12:00:47PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
    > >> > +EXTRA_CFLAGS += -Wextra -Wno-unused
    > >>
    > >> Why add -Wno-unused ?
    > >>
    > >> If it's because of verbosity, maybe
    > >
    > > Nah, it's because it is too noisy and spits too many false positives.
    > >
    > "too noisy" is a subjective point of view.

    Ok, does "too many false positives" objectify it a bit more to your
    taste?

    > > For example, it reports the arguments of all those stubs from the
    > > headers which are provided for the else-branch of a CONFIG_* option,
    > > etc.
    > >
    > and by the same way, you silence function marked with
    > `warn_unused_result', unless I misread the manpage.

    Can you point me to that passage, I cannot find it in my gcc manpage.

    > If you want to silence something specific, why not just the `no'
    > variant of the thing you do not want ?

    Yes, '-Wunused -Wno-unused-parameter' looks better.

    > Btw, could you not take the same approach as the one taken by the BSD,
    > which is 3 or 4 different level of new warnings. That way, you keep
    > the noisy stuff for the highest warning level.

    Nope, because there's no reason for it. I want to have one switch that
    craps out all the possible warnings gcc can spit, I catch the build
    output, fix the bugs and that's it.

    --
    Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-02-21 05:57    [W:7.736 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site