Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752130Ab1BUFcS (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:32:18 -0500 Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:55645 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751142Ab1BUFcQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:32:16 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=wf5KtoR3fKHPs1DATJgFcBScfyIwNGdmcRB30eFzAuhdLV1QWD2UnH+YdbIAsspDpP Ri7wCUXWGFM61QAN9D0Mjyw1y5jvGaXKJUBOCwF36fU2FpGR4Ve4zkqSbwGNCh1I5rsc XflL5tdpyL6e7iMtyPTRXG6ePaw1R3jAMFcXk= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110221045439.GB31194@liondog.tnic> 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> <20110221045439.GB31194@liondog.tnic> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:32:15 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Add extra gcc checks From: Arnaud Lacombe 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2079 Lines: 57 Hi, On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > 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? > The degree of acceptable verbosity should be left to the end user. >> > 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. > my mistake, I just checked, `-Wno-unused' does not affect the `warn_unused_result' warning. `-Wno-unused-result' is required to silent that one. >> 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. > Looks like I'll submit the patch implementing multiple warnings level then ;-) - Arnaud -- 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/