[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiWeE8jU9d_aMbeczuDxWzkoks38ALLfv44xSiiv7DQyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 13:49:39 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of Linus' tree
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 at 11:20, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Heh. We have several other cases of that "disable warning" pattern
> that does *not* use that cc-disable-warning thing.
Bah. I did the obvious sed-script to fix this up, and the result just
feels oh-so-wrong.
It feels so wrong because the CC_NO_STRINGOP_OVERFLOW case in the main
Makefile goes from having
... += $(call cc-option, -Wno-stringop-overflow)
to having the (obviously fixed)
... += $(call cc-disable-warning, stringop-overflow)
and the patch is clearly *right*.
But the "feels wrong" part is because the very next (unchanged) line
in the patch is then using
... += $(call cc-option, -Wstringop-overflow)
for the CC_STRINGOP_OVERFLOW case.
So that patch (full patch attached if somebody wants to see it) really
makes it obvious just how unbalanced that cc-option vs
cc-disable-warning thing is.
No wonder we had this pattern wrong in several places, in other words.
Linus
View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (3068 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists