linux-kernel - Re: clang warning: implicit conversion in intel

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, 02 Feb 2018 12:04:32 +0100
From:   Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>
To:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Cc:     Ozan Alpay <ozyalpy@...il.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
        Ville Syrjälä 
        <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>, sil2review@...ts.osadl.org,
        kernelnewbies@...nelnewbies.org, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        llvmlinux@...ts.linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: clang warning: implicit conversion in intel_ddi.c:1481

On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 12:44 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> +Knut, Fengguang
> 
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2018, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > 	- If clang now builds the kernel "cleanly", yes, I want to take
> > 	  warning fixes in the stable tree.  And even better yet, if you
> > 	  keep working to ensure the tree is "clean", that would be
> > 	  wonderful.
> 
> So we can run sparse using 'make C=1' and friends, or other static
> analysis tools using 'make CHECK=foo C=1', as long as the passed command
> line params work. There was work by Knut to extend this make checker
> stuff [1]. Since mixing different HOSTCC's in a single workdir seems
> like a bad idea, I wonder how hard it would be to make clang work like
> this:
> 
> $ make CHECK=clang C=1
> 
> Or using Knut's wrapper. Feels like that could increase the use of clang
> for static analysis of patches.

Yes, definitely a natural addition to the set of tools supported by
runchecks to also support using alternate compiler(s) as "checkers" - I guess
the same would apply for people compiling with clang - that they don't accidentally
generate warnings with gcc..

Thanks,
Knut

> BR,
> Jani.
> 
> 
> [1] http://mid.mail-archive.com/cover.5b56d020b8e826a7da33b1823c059acd0c123f8b.151507278
> 2.git-series.knut.omang@...cle.com
> 
> 
>