linux-kernel - Re: clang warning: implicit conversion in intel

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 02 Feb 2018 16:37:55 +0200
From:   Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>,
        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

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:44:38PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> 
>> +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.
>
> Why not just build with clang itself:
> 	make CC=clang

Same as HOSTCC, mixing different CC's in a single build dir seems like a
bad idea. Sure, everyone can setup a separate build dir for clang, but
IMHO having 'make CHECK=clang C=1' work has least resistance. YMMV.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center