[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <940dcf77-05ae-4cf6-b5f0-5b8cf80adab6@t-8ch.de>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 10:10:36 +0200
From: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
To: Zhangjin Wu <falcon@...ylab.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
shuah@...nel.org, tanyuan@...ylab.org, w@....eu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] selftests/nolibc: enable -Wall compiler warnings
On 2023-07-31 15:17:18+0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> > It will help the developers to avoid cruft and detect some bugs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile
> > index f42adef87e12..72227d75c6da 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile
> > @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ endif
> > CFLAGS_s390 = -m64
> > CFLAGS_mips = -EL
> > CFLAGS_STACKPROTECTOR ?= $(call cc-option,-mstack-protector-guard=global $(call cc-option,-fstack-protector-all))
> > -CFLAGS ?= -Os -fno-ident -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -std=c89 \
> > +CFLAGS ?= -Os -fno-ident -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -std=c89 -Wall \
>
> Very good static analyzer support.
>
> What about further add more options?
>
> +CFLAGS ?= -Os -fno-ident -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -std=c89 -Wall -Wextra -Werror\
>
> A simple test shows, it can catch more issues.
-Wextra will need some further rework for 32bit architectures to avoid
some warnings.
(At least mips for which I tested it)
I don't think -Werror is appropriate. If we want to test the functioning
of nolibc with weird compilers these may very well add new warnings and
that shouldn't break the build.
>
> Thanks,
> Zhangjin
>
> > $(call cc-option,-fno-stack-protector) \
> > $(CFLAGS_$(ARCH)) $(CFLAGS_STACKPROTECTOR)
> > LDFLAGS := -s
> >
> > --
> > 2.41.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists