[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251006214845.GA3234160@ax162>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 14:48:45 -0700
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Askar Safin <safinaskar@...il.com>,
Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>,
Nicolas Schier <nsc@...nel.org>, a.hindborg@...nel.org,
alex.gaynor@...il.com, aliceryhl@...gle.com,
bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, dakr@...nel.org,
gary@...yguo.net, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lossin@...nel.org, ojeda@...nel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, tmgross@...ch.edu, sam@...too.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] kbuild: enable -Werror for hostprogs
On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 01:27:33PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2025 at 10:53 PM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Thomas and Nicolas, thoughts?
>
> I think it would be good to eventually split the hostprog flags into 2
> sets: the ones that are used for bootstrapping, and the ones that go
> after that.
>
> That way, we can get the best of both worlds, if I understand correctly.
Does that buy us much? We would not want -Werror applied to
scripts/basic or scripts/kconfig without consent from the user. W=e
could provide that at that stage of the build (with an adjustment of
where scripts/Makefile.extrawarn was included) but CONFIG_WERROR would
not be.
Given how frequently fixdep and kconfig are built, I am fairly confident
that new warnings wtihin them would be reported quickly, even without
-Werror, so I do not see it as too much of a loss. All other host
programs should be covered by that diff.
It may still be worth doing for other reasons but I would have to see
what such a change would actually look like in practice before
committing to it.
Cheers,
Nathan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists