From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56378C432BE for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 19:04:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D0F26052B for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 19:04:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231896AbhG0TEf (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:04:35 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56204 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230136AbhG0TEd (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:04:33 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x130.google.com (mail-lf1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB7E8C061760 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x130.google.com with SMTP id g13so23440345lfj.12 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:04:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=57qgj1c6LCtY+XqJGr03UfT/+n6dkMmVsE0B06Lumzw=; b=uuT/okmd4zjIpxDDKkIo5gwpx+QtKyHJ0E93R3t5hro9Z87Vm4vz5rNCAD//WAeMPV zOEicokwcFP1XJzeU0QnQB5S8BBb04pEiud4bpWXTt/nvK2A5j6ZBhMZf5kZyxa0QJ8J Qe11/8Lt+wGkL20lOcaHSWvcsQ/6ShSlkSMdczrYuYnNAvPVjjz8GxsBShYUets5Oq48 G4vSYSb3yEiZa0PfCxyfc0UbKGC5tjeLzrk26FtR6WkNg630ZMyrgnA6vO2Aha+ECMa/ InceSka+YBQDZP8g3EyZtT3KB8/D/V20jMaSy60mHEm/RxAYKDfIOA6a6NUEh9uNuzUS YjtQ== 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; bh=57qgj1c6LCtY+XqJGr03UfT/+n6dkMmVsE0B06Lumzw=; b=jArJmyj4BImxp1wDflnGbbsYyiQaKwNLrvFie97cNwIIZiD6H3kHaFwS+tUUPlHin2 h5/89cmwNfMJ8N158cu2dgcVbf7K5FWa30IQi77ur1/yXi8vncM0AEpXOvp9h4x6cskE Ts2sYaJOLU0Mn6BTPcEcKpO1JVKUF9NlMoZiEuZXUz0mD5fHaQjRp0DICxiQhSBJUCLC fn1Wnuvgk/mwFLhNA2d1tCIrz7Qh0zDIxecsQPHKWcabh3nHf6qrduyv2PnTLgSNvM95 kRZbJB58hO0VW3iXavf4dTUSjyvHqfXSPf2THh5u8+9ETvQU2Eqh6mgDzEtoH7ZUnU1s /T1A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533S4nH2lM2tomBg2a23bqjITeZuDPLnYHXg+ZJVsZeSPG9dNJP0 qpPJ6Fz2dVt64N10uuk0ccxgcBvu41pZbdJ5tq+g0A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxLr8+coUojLcpoNK8iBCbQyiX5qGUJUc6ABlCOlILu34Y6PX4HXl0Qji3LqTu4Wjm0wAA98vz5rrkNeYeNO+w= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:59db:: with SMTP id x27mr17500966lfn.547.1627412669994; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:04:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210714091747.2814370-1-morbo@google.com> <20210726201924.3202278-1-morbo@google.com> <20210726201924.3202278-2-morbo@google.com> <0fcf5740-2e0f-4da7-be58-77822df54f81@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <0fcf5740-2e0f-4da7-be58-77822df54f81@kernel.org> From: Nick Desaulniers Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:04:18 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] base: mark 'no_warn' as unused To: Nathan Chancellor , Bill Wendling Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , clang-built-linux , LKML , linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 11:32 AM Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > On 7/27/2021 10:39 AM, 'Nick Desaulniers' via Clang Built Linux wrote: > > Isn't -Wunused-but-set-variable enabled only for W=1 builds? > > Maybe Bill's tree does not have commit 885480b08469 ("Makefile: Move > -Wno-unused-but-set-variable out of GCC only block"), which disables the > warning for clang just like GCC for regular builds? Looks like 885480b08469, which landed in v5.13-rc1, so that's a possibility. Should that be sent to stable@ so that we don't observe these warnings for non-W=1 builds of stable branches with newer versions of clang? -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers