[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 12:44:38 +0200
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>
Cc: Ozan Alpay <ozyalpy@...il.com>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>,
sil2review@...ts.osadl.org, kernelnewbies@...nelnewbies.org,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
llvmlinux@...ts.linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: clang warning: implicit conversion in intel_ddi.c:1481
+Knut, Fengguang
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> - If clang now builds the kernel "cleanly", yes, I want to take
> warning fixes in the stable tree. And even better yet, if you
> keep working to ensure the tree is "clean", that would be
> wonderful.
So we can run sparse using 'make C=1' and friends, or other static
analysis tools using 'make CHECK=foo C=1', as long as the passed command
line params work. There was work by Knut to extend this make checker
stuff [1]. Since mixing different HOSTCC's in a single workdir seems
like a bad idea, I wonder how hard it would be to make clang work like
this:
$ make CHECK=clang C=1
Or using Knut's wrapper. Feels like that could increase the use of clang
for static analysis of patches.
BR,
Jani.
[1] http://mid.mail-archive.com/cover.5b56d020b8e826a7da33b1823c059acd0c123f8b.1515072782.git-series.knut.omang@oracle.com
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Powered by blists - more mailing lists