linux-kernel - Re: Updating kernel.org cross compilers?

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]

Message-ID: <20170510134019.GB19687@gate.crashing.org>
Date:   Wed, 10 May 2017 08:40:22 -0500
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
        LAKML <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Tony Breeds <tony@...eyournoodle.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Updating kernel.org cross compilers?

Hi Arnd, long time no see,

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 09:58:13AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> So in addition to GCC 7.1 I'd like to have at least GCC 6.3 around,
> >> which builds kernels without warnings today.
> >
> > If you don't want warnings, turn off the warnings or just don't look at
> > them...  or fix the problems?  Many of the new warnings point out actual
> > problems.
> >
> > Many of those sprintf problems in the kernel have already been fixed.
> 
> I've been using gcc-7.0 for a long time and fixed a lot of bugs it found,
> along with more harmless warnings, but I had disabled a couple of
> warning options when I first installed gcc-7 and ended up ignoring
> those.
> 
> The exact set of additional options I used is:
> 
> -Wimplicit-fallthrough=0 -Wno-duplicate-decl-specifier
> -Wno-int-in-bool-context -Wno-bool-operation -Wno-format-truncation
> -Wno-format-overflow
> 
> there were a couple of others that I sent kernel fixes for instead.
> I should probably revisit that list and for each of them either
> only enable it with "make W=1" or fix all known warnings.
> In the long run, I'd actually hope to fix all W=1 warnings too
> and enable them by default.

Most of those usually point out actual problems (at least code that
isn't as clear as it should be).  I do hate that first one though.


Segher