[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikGb7_1sv8zthkt_5qp4ciGbWHQVupx3MmOjfWJ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 22:34:57 -0500
From: Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Add extra gcc checks
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> 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.
> 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. If you want to
silence something specific, why not just the `no' variant of the thing
you do not want ?
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.
- Arnaud
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists