lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Look Ma, da kernel is b0rken
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 07:57:21AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:47:49 +0000 Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > And yes btw we should turn this option on in -next, and get these sort of
> > things out of the tree for good. More importantly it'll mean anyone
> > adding another one gets a whine on the spot.
>
> While I appreciate your confidence, I don't notice quite a few new
> warnings (because there are so many of them already :-(). Is there some
> reason to not turn this on in our "normal" builds? Does it produce many
> false positives?

Yes, it produces a huge number of warnings which need weeding out (some
of them are false positives and some of them are simply unfixable due to
design decisions in the kernel, etc, etc):

$ make W=123 drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.o 2> w.log
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
CHK include/generated/uapi/linux/version.h
CHK include/generated/utsrelease.h
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `relocs'.
CALL scripts/checksyscalls.sh
CC drivers/pnp/pnpacpi/core.o
$ wc w.log
2305 11202 168011 w.log

This is 2305 lines only for one compilation unit.

So if one enables all additional warning levels (this is what "W=123"
does) your build logs will be huge.

> What compiler version is required?

Works on all compilers by checking for supported -W options - see
scripts/Makefile.build.

> I also currently don't carry patches that only ever appear in
> linux-next (well, not intentionally anyway). I assume it would require
> a patch to the Makefile(s) to turn this on.

See above.

So ideally it would be if someone would build with "W=123" and track all
new warnings appearing with each new patch in linux-next and nag the
patch author to fix it before it hits mainline. This would require a
moderate level of scripting and experimenting though. The advantage is
that with something like that we'll be able to use all -W code checking
methods implemented gcc on our code and let the compiler possibly catch
more stuff.

We simply need someone not lazy enough to write that tracking and
nagging bit :).

Thanks.

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-12-05 23:01    [W:0.347 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site