Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755875Ab1BUEyq (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:54:46 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:51083 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755810Ab1BUEyn (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:54:43 -0500 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 05:54:39 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Arnaud Lacombe Cc: Joe Perches , Sam Ravnborg , Michal Marek , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Add extra gcc checks Message-ID: <20110221045439.GB31194@liondog.tnic> Mail-Followup-To: Borislav Petkov , Arnaud Lacombe , Joe Perches , Sam Ravnborg , Michal Marek , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org References: <1298219710-9846-1-git-send-email-bp@alien8.de> <20110220175709.GA5178@merkur.ravnborg.org> <20110220193906.GC6713@liondog.tnic> <1298232047.1284.14.camel@Joe-Laptop> <20110221022707.GB18332@liondog.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1681 Lines: 48 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 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/