From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.windriver.com (mail.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2537D4F9 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 08:40:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com ([147.11.189.40]) by mail.windriver.com (8.15.2/8.15.1) with ESMTPS id x3G8eKOi012218 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 16 Apr 2019 01:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.224.162.194] (128.224.162.194) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 01:40:19 -0700 To: Adrian Bunk , Khem Raj References: <1554777170-58044-1-git-send-email-mingli.yu@windriver.com> <20190415093825.GB4317@localhost> <20190415162156.GA16706@localhost> From: "Yu, Mingli" Message-ID: <5CB5960C.2030408@windriver.com> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 16:45:00 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190415162156.GA16706@localhost> X-Originating-IP: [128.224.162.194] Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] gcc-sanitizers: fix -Werror=maybe-uninitialized issue X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 08:40:21 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2019年04月16日 00:21, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 07:19:13AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: >> >> What are you trying to convey ? That’s what I mentioned before I began my >> reply however to reiterate my point was if a package is not usually built >> and tested with this combination which is evident because it fails to build >> then how good would it be if we fix this error especially complex packages >> like compilers so is it worth to fix them or disable Og for them > > Packages that usually get built and tested with -Og should be pretty rare, > and these specific build failures are better at finding the rare packages > that use -Werror than pointing at potential miscompilations. > >>>From a distribution point of view, a package build with -Werror by > default is arguably a bug since this frequently breaks when something > is changed (usually the compiler version). > > -Og is better suited than the -O that was previously used for debugging, > but are we talking about debug builds or production builds? > If users would be using DEBUG_OPTIMIZATION in production builds that Thanks Adrian and Khem's response! We indeed don't use DEBUG_OPTIMIZATION in production build. But still comes question: how to silence gcc-sanitizers build failure when debug build enabled? Thanks, > would be wrong - this will always be a mostly untested situation > with an increased probability of hitting bugs noone else has seen > before. > > cu > Adrian >