linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Add extra gcc checks

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:	Mon, 21 Feb 2011 05:54:39 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>
Cc:	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

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 <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.

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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/