[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdmhqq0DT5csX6W8xDF=nuXgJJ_Rtc2xf++=Q9uA4tZEvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:51:49 -0700
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
George Burgess <gbiv@...gle.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Subject: Re: [RFC] treewide: cleanup unreachable breaks
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 11:42 AM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2020-10-19 at 12:42 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > We probably should add all 3 to W=2 builds (wrapped in cc-option).
> > I've filed https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1180 to
> > follow up on.
>
> I suggest using W=1 as people that are doing cleanups
> generally use that and not W=123 or any other style.
>
> Every other use of W= is still quite noisy and these
> code warnings are relatively trivially to fix up.
The 0day bot folks have enabled W=1 recently; hence the uptick in
reports of -Wimplicit-function-declaration.
If it gets added to W=1, it's effectively "on by default" for new code
tested by 0day bot.
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists