linux-kernel - Re: Overriding -Werror

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:	Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:43:03 -0700
From:	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Overriding -Werror

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 06:15:07AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com> writes:
> >
> > 4. better ideas?
> 
> Just send patches to remove -Werror in all architectures
> as a tree sweep (and anywhere else where someone misguided add it)

I cited at least one example in which this was attempted but rejected.
(Or at least, it was semi-deliberately stalled.)

> Having -Werror anywhere in a shipping release is just plainly a bug,
> as it makes it often impossible to build on newer gcc versions.

I also feel it is misguided, for other reasons. But there are at least a
few who seem to disagree. They seem to feel it is important/necessary
for enforcing good practices during development. I'm not sure how to
bridge the disagreement, other than to provide workarounds for disabling
-Werror.

I could try sending -Werror removal patches, but I'm not confident that
will go over well.

Brian
--
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/