lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] kbuild, LLVMLinux: Supress warnings unless W=1-3
    On 07/31/14 13:46, Michal Marek wrote:
    > Dne 31.7.2014 18:12, Behan Webster napsal(a):
    >> On 07/31/14 01:18, Michal Marek wrote:
    >>> Dne 31.7.2014 06:16, behanw@converseincode.com napsal(a):
    >>>> @@ -55,6 +45,18 @@ warning-3 += -Wswitch-default
    >>>> warning-3 += $(call cc-option, -Wpacked-bitfield-compat)
    >>>> warning-3 += $(call cc-option, -Wvla)
    >>>> +ifeq ($(COMPILER),clang)
    >>>> +ifndef $(W)
    >>>> +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, initializer-overrides)
    >>>> +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, unused-value)
    >>>> +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, format)
    >>>> +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, unknown-warning-option)
    >>>> +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, sign-compare)
    >>>> +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, format-zero-length)
    >>>> +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, uninitialized)
    >>>> +endif
    >>>> +endif
    >>>> +
    >>> Please remove this part, it has no effect. I assume that if it works for
    >>> you, these warning are not as annoying so they do not need to be
    >>> disabled?
    >> Actually they are annoying, that's why they're disabled normally. Most
    >> of them complain about practices which are relatively common in kernel
    >> code.
    >>
    >> clang warns about a lot more things than gcc does. It means that code
    >> which compiles cleanly in gcc often doesn't with clang. This cuts out
    >> the warnings which are unlikely to to be fixed in kernel code anytime
    >> soon, but which are probably worth exposing when W=1 is used.
    >>
    >> This part of the patch explicitly deals with complaints from some in the
    >> kernel community that clang is too noisy with kernel code.
    >>
    >> This part of the patch needs to be somewhere. This seemed the best place.
    > You placed it inside a branch that is only evaluated when W= is given.
    Hmm. You're right. Will fix.

    Behan

    --
    Behan Webster
    behanw@converseincode.com



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-08-01 06:41    [W:4.031 / U:0.056 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site