From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qg0-f49.google.com ([209.85.192.49]:34275 "EHLO mail-qg0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753589AbbCRCFy (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Mar 2015 22:05:54 -0400 Received: by qgh62 with SMTP id 62so25957357qgh.1 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 19:05:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5508DD81.20006@cumulusnetworks.com> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 22:05:53 -0400 From: Jonathan Toppins MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 kbuild for-next 1/2] makefiles: add config option to force all cc warnings to errors References: <1426631862-19563-1-git-send-email-jtoppins@cumulusnetworks.com> <1426633120.15575.17.camel@x220> In-Reply-To: <1426633120.15575.17.camel@x220> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Paul Bolle Cc: Michal Marek , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org On 3/17/15 6:58 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: > On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 15:37 -0700, Jonathan Toppins wrote: >> --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug >> +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug >> +config DEBUG_FORCE_CC_WARNINGS_TO_ERRORS >> + bool "Force cc warnings to errors" >> + default y > > No way. > >> + help >> + Simply enables the gcc compiler option -Werror for the entire >> + build. If a compilation unit cannot handle -Werror by fixing the >> + warning then that unit must suppress the cc warning using >> + cc-disable-warning for that compilation unit in the unit's makefile. >> + . > > (Why the dot?) > >> + This option is intended to be more in the developer's face and >> + encourage effort of some kind to remove the compilation warning. >> + . > > (Dot?) > >> + If unsure say y. > > Again, no way. > >> + >> endmenu # "Compiler options" >> >> config MAGIC_SYSRQ > > Feel free to fix as many build warning as you can. I'd really appreciate > that. But my x86_64 build of v4.0-rc4 is _almost_ warning free. And > that's nice. And I find -Werror (and littering Makefiles with > cc-disable-warning) just to remove the few warnings I still see plain > silly. I'm sure the same holds for other people and their builds too. Please note, I was not trying to imply using cc-disable-warning was a first resort option, sorry if it seemed like that. In fact in my opinion cc-disable-warning should almost never be used. Do you have a suggestion for better wording of this? Some slight background on these patches, they were born out of the team here wanting to have a simple way of easily catching warnings during driver development. This seemed like the least cumbersome way. I understand if defaulting to yes is not advisable. Will be happy to submit another patch defaulting to no and clean-up the Dots in the paragraphs. From the comments provided so far this approach would seem to address them, unless I am misunderstanding and in fact the general idea of compiling with -Werror is not wanted. Appreciate the discussion. -Jon