From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
To: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
<openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] gcc-sanitizers: fix -Werror=maybe-uninitialized issue
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 19:21:56 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190415162156.GA16706@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMKF1sps-k6m=ZrpuMmhj23ZkmF8C=17hGPscRH-V0cagV-2rw@mail.gmail.com>
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
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
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-15 16:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-19 8:44 [PATCH] gcc-sanitizers: fix -Werror=maybe-uninitialized issue mingli.yu
2019-03-26 1:37 ` Yu, Mingli
2019-04-04 9:36 ` Yu, Mingli
2019-04-05 22:01 ` Khem Raj
2019-04-08 6:40 ` [PATCH v2] " mingli.yu
2019-04-09 2:32 ` [PATCH v3] " mingli.yu
2019-04-09 3:53 ` Khem Raj
2019-04-15 9:27 ` Yu, Mingli
2019-04-15 9:38 ` Adrian Bunk
2019-04-15 14:19 ` Khem Raj
2019-04-15 16:21 ` Adrian Bunk [this message]
2019-04-16 8:45 ` Yu, Mingli
2019-04-16 18:00 ` Khem Raj
2019-04-17 7:49 ` Yu, Mingli
2019-04-17 17:14 ` Khem Raj
2019-04-22 5:45 ` Yu, Mingli
2019-04-22 8:41 ` [PATCH v4] " mingli.yu
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=20190415162156.GA16706@localhost \
--to=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=raj.khem@gmail.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.