Messages in this thread | | | From | Nick Desaulniers <> | Date | Tue, 27 Oct 2020 13:50:53 -0700 | Subject | Re: Subject: [RFC] clang tooling cleanups |
| |
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 12:52 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > (Adding Stephen Rothwell) > > On Tue, 2020-10-27 at 12:33 -0700, Tom Rix wrote: > > On 10/27/20 11:42 AM, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > (cutting down the CC list to something more intimate) > > [] > > > I am interested in treewide fixes. > > As am I, but here the definition of fixes is undefined though. > Whitespace / style changes and other bits that don't change generated > object code aren't considered fixes by many maintainers. > > > Cleaning them up (maybe me not doing all the patches) and keeping them clean. > > > > The clang -Wextra-semi-stmt -fixit will fix all 10,000 problems > > I rather doubt there are 10K extra semicolons in the kernel source tree. > Is there a proposed diff/patch posted somewhere?
Ah, I think I see where I (and Joe) may be misinterpreting. Tom, do you mean to say that `clang -fixit` will attempt to fix EVERY warning in tree (including but regardless of -Wextra-semi-stmt, where -Wextra-semi-stmt is a red herring), so the clang-tidy check is specific to applying fixits just for -Wextra-semi-stmt? (If so, I wonder if we could improve clang to accept more fine grain control over *which* fixits we want applied. Not at all of them for all of the different distinct warnings, for example).
> > > This clang tidy fixer will fix only the 100 problems that are 'switch() {};' > > > > When doing a treewide cleanup, batching a bunch of fixes that are the same problem and fix > > is much easier on everyone to review and more likely to be accepted. > > That depends on the definition of batching. > > If individual patches are sent to multiple maintainers, the > acceptance / apply rate seems always < 50% and some are rejected > outright by various maintainers as "unnecessary churn". > > Single treewide patches are generally not applied unless by Linus. > The trivial tree isn't widely used for this. > > Perhaps a 'scripted' git tree could be established that is integrated > into -next that would allow these automated patches to be better > vetted and increase the acceptance rate of these automated patches. > > > Long term, a c/i system would keep the tree clean by running the switch-semi checker/fixer. > > And we can all move onto the next problem. > > Good idea... > I hope a scripted patches mechanism will be established.
Yes, if I can automate myself out of job, then I can hang out of the roof and drink margaritas all day. That is the plan of record, but this !##$'ing compiler is constantly broken!!!!1
-- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
| |