Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Feb 2011 05:54:39 +0100 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |