From: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Cc: linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
Clang-Built-Linux ML <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kbuild: refactor scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:18:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+icZUUhhOLfOgwoKP4nKOdPakNJF7XafJ09ERP6r7dOUduMsg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+icZUWigJkh-VtJc4=xE06oMgE=ci2Mfdo2JaDv0fth8PKH+A@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:20 AM Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 7:55 AM Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
> >
> > Instead of the warning-[123] magic, let's accumulate compiler options
> > to KBUILD_CFLAGS directly as the top Makefile does. I think this makes
> > easier to understand what is going on in this file.
> >
> > This commit slightly changes the behavior, I think all of which are OK.
> >
> > [1] Currently, cc-option calls are needlessly evaluated. For example,
> > warning-3 += $(call cc-option, -Wpacked-bitfield-compat)
> > needs evaluating only when W=3, but it is actually evaluated for
> > W=1, W=2 as well. With this commit, only relevant cc-option calls
> > will be evaluated. This is a slight optimization.
> >
> > [2] Currently, unsupported level like W=4 is checked by:
> > $(error W=$(KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS) is unknown)
> > This will no longer be checked, but I do not think it is a big
> > deal.
> >
>
> Hi Masahiro Yamada,
>
> thanks for your patch series.
>
> If KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS does extra(-warning)-checks for GCC and Clang,
> please rename the Kconfig into...
>
> KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_CC_CHECKS
>
> ...or something similiar (and maybe with some notes in its Kconfig help-text?).
>
I have tested both patches against recent kbuild-next and can boot on
bare metal with clang.
I have *not* passed any W= to my make, but I see that clang's W=1
kbuild-cflags are active.
[ scripts/Makefile.extrawarn ]
ifeq ("$(origin W)", "command line")
export KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS := $(W)
endif
#
# W=1 - warnings that may be relevant and does not occur too often
#
ifneq ($(findstring 1, $(KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS)),)
[ ... ]
KBUILD_CPPFLAGS += -DKBUILD_EXTRA_WARN1
else
# W=1 also stops suppressing some warnings
ifdef CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wno-initializer-overrides
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wno-format
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wno-sign-compare
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wno-format-zero-length
endif # CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG
endif # KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS
These clang KBUILD_CFLAGS are active independently of passing W=1.
$ grep '\-Wno-initializer-overrides'
build-log_5.3.0-rc6-2-amd64-cbl-asmgoto.txt | wc -l
27195
So the above comment is misleading?
Is W=1 activated by default?
Or do I miss something?
[ Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.rst ]
KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS
------------------------------
If enabled over the make command line with "W=1", it turns on additional
gcc -W... options for more extensive build-time checking.
What about?
KBUILD_CC_EXTRA_CHECKS (or KBUILD_EXTRA_CC_CHECKS)
------------------------------
If enabled over the make command line with "W=...", it turns on additional
compiler warning options like -Wmissing-declarations for more extensive
build-time checking. For more details see <Documentation/kbuild/kbuild.rst>.
W=1 - warnings that may be relevant and does not occur too often
W=1 - also stops suppressing some warnings
W=2 - warnings that occur quite often but may still be relevant
W=3 - the more obscure warnings, can most likely be ignored
- Sedat -
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-28 14:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-28 5:54 [PATCH 1/2] kbuild: refactor scripts/Makefile.extrawarn Masahiro Yamada
2019-08-28 5:54 ` [PATCH 2/2] kbuild: allow Clang to find unused static inline functions for W=1 build Masahiro Yamada
2019-08-28 18:20 ` Nathan Chancellor
2019-08-28 23:28 ` Nick Desaulniers
2019-08-29 0:05 ` Nathan Chancellor
2019-09-03 15:38 ` Masahiro Yamada
2019-08-30 7:07 ` Sedat Dilek
2019-08-30 9:52 ` Sedat Dilek
2019-09-03 15:39 ` Masahiro Yamada
2019-08-28 7:20 ` [PATCH 1/2] kbuild: refactor scripts/Makefile.extrawarn Sedat Dilek
2019-08-28 14:18 ` Sedat Dilek [this message]
2019-08-28 14:21 ` Sedat Dilek
2019-08-28 15:59 ` Sedat Dilek
2019-08-29 17:56 ` Masahiro Yamada
2019-08-28 18:26 ` Nick Desaulniers
2019-08-28 18:17 ` Nathan Chancellor
2019-08-28 22:38 ` Nick Desaulniers
2019-08-29 8:49 ` Sedat Dilek
2019-08-29 9:54 ` Sedat Dilek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CA+icZUUhhOLfOgwoKP4nKOdPakNJF7XafJ09ERP6r7dOUduMsg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=sedat.dilek@gmail.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michal.lkml@markovi.net \
--cc=miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com \
--cc=natechancellor@gmail.com \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).