From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io1-f67.google.com (mail-io1-f67.google.com [209.85.166.67]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B917D2A8 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 18:01:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-f67.google.com with SMTP id e13so18390505ioq.6 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 11:01:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qm4l0R2Bix9O9g8fki82GY81i1rqjCVOvbb35xT+t14=; b=lFH7/9AnZq6WibtzqXnQoew8pgp8UvI1Ku9VOih20cQyOSKydqQg9JCH5ULk0oijGy G6EX1ABHMH5/oQaV8hEI2LLl5dJV2mWka7BLIUqT1h2qFEpVyJFDTJfOJFM8eDreY7id SHWaDWnWgHZWOIP+LGu1ivnP3fXuhgD8ElQVWE7irL4uL3WERL9huRE6z13tNG49oEmn jMwOWBux2sG3AFyoJRura3L4qGvPShgqoSkZjt35lMPLAUXtGd046zINEC6zILAzyM8P 2UhXeeoeyet+crn3mdIpJ9hpPWX+nbZna/bmmioDRe6K0v05fEnKyGHHC8ejSKlKuKy8 Ax9g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qm4l0R2Bix9O9g8fki82GY81i1rqjCVOvbb35xT+t14=; b=gVufnkgrSa9irt1/Od9eitzKnuCNpOJ3GBXCp5q4PzOTnNqpqeeQK9CoWXc/8ec9n5 FJ43yPTOoqEgEN3qxflxjVIcdz25sXHKBST23dfmvtFgi9na1N1KcPWdgbCBEfpBW2lc /ojjMbdSMY9vwN/FlYza/8ZpemdNcP51dm7omSawDW0P80Dmo4i0BioxIRBSkCICXEs4 5u0GMrevFAcL0zIRWiRG1DA6vuBkQKaTRqUnao8OITpX2y2gYrmZKYAY+N5ToYGyPHL4 1odv1zq7FwGzWQblwH9q6/kKhs0VaeGmFLA0rWt7KaDIQHlj4Cpa9ggvmI07O08JmrRn ox6w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXycNApTNY1cbMuMTJCrpuER3Jhb/Zj600kCXX0TTUtPVJ4EP+a dbv9iOZIaRQOG+hbDqKPBJ1jF1CacHx4rW1wErM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwJIPzj21Di0uDkHao+XmW3bMjtx2pY/nkQ+8QXSC17amMEswBdaTfuxXkFRjzL4BbQkxrZvHIT56koUho0ZyQ= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:e307:: with SMTP id u7mr52404901ioc.208.1555437670795; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 11:01:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1554777170-58044-1-git-send-email-mingli.yu@windriver.com> <20190415093825.GB4317@localhost> <20190415162156.GA16706@localhost> <5CB5960C.2030408@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: <5CB5960C.2030408@windriver.com> From: Khem Raj Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 11:00:44 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Yu, Mingli" 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: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 18:01:10 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 1:40 AM Yu, Mingli wrote: > > > > On 2019=E5=B9=B404=E6=9C=8816=E6=97=A5 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=E2=80=99s what I mentioned before= I began my > >> reply however to reiterate my point was if a package is not usually bu= ilt > >> 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 pack= ages > >> 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 ra= re, > > and these specific build failures are better at finding the rare packag= es > > 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. > > > > cu > > Adrian > >