From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/qede: fix gcc compiler option checks
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 20:54:19 +0100
Message-ID: <2048360.N3oLfgCnq1@xps13>
References: <4958892.sIoVxbTeGS@xps13> <20161028151203.1a47d895@xeon-e3>
 <BLUPR0701MB15723F83E7BF952B9CBD98859FAD0@BLUPR0701MB1572.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>, dev@dpdk.org,
 Dept-EngDPDKDev@qlogic.com
To: "Mody, Rasesh" <Rasesh.Mody@cavium.com>,
 Rasesh Mody <rasesh.mody@qlogic.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7F22A5E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  7 Nov 2016 20:54:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id u144so31150407wmu.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 11:54:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <BLUPR0701MB15723F83E7BF952B9CBD98859FAD0@BLUPR0701MB1572.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-10-28 22:49, Mody, Rasesh:
> > From: Stephen Hemminger
> > >  ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_TOOLCHAIN_GCC),y)
> > > -ifeq ($(shell gcc -Wno-unused-but-set-variable -Werror -E - < /dev/null > /dev/null 2>&1; echo $$?),0)
> > > +ifeq ($(shell test $(GCC_VERSION) -ge 44 && echo 1), 1)
> > >  CFLAGS_BASE_DRIVER += -Wno-unused-but-set-variable
> > >  endif
> > >  CFLAGS_BASE_DRIVER += -Wno-missing-declarations
> > > -ifeq ($(shell gcc -Wno-maybe-uninitialized -Werror -E - < /dev/null > /dev/null 2>&1; echo $$?),0)
> > > +ifeq ($(shell test $(GCC_VERSION) -ge 46 && echo 1), 1)
> > >  CFLAGS_BASE_DRIVER += -Wno-maybe-uninitialized
> > >  endif
> > 
> > Does this mean that less compiler checking is done or more?
> 
> With higher version of compilers more compiler checking is done, for older compilers less checking is done. As some of the older compiles do not have newly added checking capabilities. Testing with latest compilers ensures we do lot more checking.

It is basically less checking.
It disables some checks if the compiler support them because it would
make compilation failing.

Why would it fail? Because as other base drivers, the code is messy.

> > It seems lots of drivers make the excuse:
> >  "the base driver comes from another group and is known buggy but can't be
> >  fixed"
> > That doesn't reflect well on the quality of the DPDK.

You're right Stephen. It is an excuse which has been accepted in DPDK.
Should we be stricter?