linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] kbuild: implement several W= levels

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, 22 Apr 2011 01:56:05 +0300
From:	Stratos Psomadakis <psomas@....ntua.gr>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
CC:	linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kbuild: implement several W= levels

On 22/04/2011 12:58 πμ, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 23:39 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> Building a kernel with "make W=1" produce far too much noise
>> to be usefull.
>> Divide the warning options in three groups:
>> W=1 - usefull warning options
>> W=2 - noisy but semi usefull warnign options
>> W=3 - almost pure noise options
>> +warning-1 := -Wextra
> []
>> +warning-2 += -Waggregate-return
> This is a different form for this first warning-2 declaration
> than the first warning-1 declaration.
>
> Maybe this should be := instead?
yeap...for the first warning-3 assignment too...
maybe something like this:
warning-1:=
warning-2:=
warning-3:=
right after 'ifeq' could help, so that you can alter/test the warnings'
levels more easily(without having to change between := and += for the
first warning of each warning level).

-- 
Stratos Psomadakis
<psomas@....ntua.gr>

--
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/