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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTikEzNnRpgkFPa8aL81syPCxj5fWKKM83gxn-cYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:32:15 -0500
From:	Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>,
	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 11:54 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> 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 <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?
>
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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/