[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5424B7DF.4040006@converseincode.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 17:48:31 -0700
From: Behan Webster <behanw@...verseincode.com>
To: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
CC: ak@...ux.intel.com, yamada.m@...panasonic.com, hpa@...ux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sam@...nborg.org,
Mark Charlebois <charlebm@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild, LLVMLinux: Add -Werror to cc-option to support
clang
On 09/25/14 06:34, Michal Marek wrote:
> On 2014-09-24 20:50, Behan Webster wrote:
>> Getting clang to error on unused flags wasn't trivial (this change broke
>> a lot of builds apparently). Fortunately we weren't the only ones who
>> wanted it to behave like gcc in this case. I think it's going to be
>> *much* harder to do the same for warnings. The argument given by
>> supporters of the current situation is that if a warning isn't
>> supported, why break the build? *sigh*
> I guess the reason to accept unknown warnings opentions is compatibility
> with Makefiles with hardcoded gcc-isms. BTW, GCC at some point started
> to ignore unknown -Wno-* options, for everyone's good of course. That's
> why we ended up with the cc-disable-warning function. If -W* options for
> clang need special care, then it might be a good idea to introduce
> cc-warning with the conditional -Werror for clang. There are not that
> many places where we add warnings, so the patch would be still short.
> That way, the possible silent failure is limited only to warning options
> with clang, which is not such a big deal.
I'll try this approach.
Thanks,
Behan
--
Behan Webster
behanw@...verseincode.com
--
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