From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail5.wrs.com (mail5.windriver.com [192.103.53.11]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4877D302 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 07:45:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.40]) by mail5.wrs.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x3H7icPZ009492 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 17 Apr 2019 00:44:54 -0700 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; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 00:44:40 -0700 To: Khem Raj References: <1554777170-58044-1-git-send-email-mingli.yu@windriver.com> <20190415093825.GB4317@localhost> <20190415162156.GA16706@localhost> <5CB5960C.2030408@windriver.com> From: "Yu, Mingli" Message-ID: <5CB6DA7F.3020106@windriver.com> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 15:49:19 +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: X-Originating-IP: [128.224.162.194] Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer , Adrian Bunk 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: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 07:45:37 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2019年04月17日 02:00, Khem Raj wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 1:40 AM Yu, Mingli wrote: >> >> >> >> 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. > > disable warning as errors. Hi Khem, I don't quite get what you mean. Disable warning as errors? As https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-04/msg00315.html, gcc upstream thinks the build error is meaningless when compile gcc-sanitizers with -Og and suggests not use -Og to compile for gcc-sanitizers. So I send out the patch to add the workaround [DEBUG_OPTIMIZATION_append = " -Wno-error"] to silence the error when debug build is enabled for gcc-sanitizers. If the workaround isn't suitable, then how to silence the -Werror=maybe-uninitialized issue build error when debug build enabled? Thanks, > >>> >>> cu >>> Adrian >>> >