From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@baylibre.com (Kevin Hilman) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:22:11 -0800 Subject: mainline build: 137 builds: 0 failed, 137 passed, 296 warnings (v4.4-10454-g3e1e21c7bfcf) In-Reply-To: <2640068.aDOyd9eL7v@wuerfel> (Arnd Bergmann's message of "Mon, 25 Jan 2016 21:52:43 +0100") References: <56a1c8c2.6953c20a.25484.ffff85a9@mx.google.com> <7hio2hr08f.fsf@kernel.org> <2640068.aDOyd9eL7v@wuerfel> Message-ID: <7hoac8no2k.fsf@baylibre.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Arnd Bergmann writes: > On Monday 25 January 2016 10:18:56 Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Tyler Baker writes: >> >> > On 22 January 2016 at 05:19, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> On Thursday 21 January 2016 22:14:26 kernelci. org bot wrote: >> >>> Warnings summary: >> >>> >> >>> 224 :1307:2: warning: #warning syscall copy_file_range not implemented [-Wcpp] >> >> >> >> I don't think anyone has sent this so far, sending a patch now. >> >> >> >>> 29 drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c:190:27: warning: 'vendor_zte' defined but not used [-Wunused-variable] >> >> >> >> Patch sent a couple of days ago, got an Ack and waiting to be applied. >> >> >> >>> 12 net/bluetooth/mgmt.c:5493:8: warning: 'r192' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] >> >>> 12 net/bluetooth/mgmt.c:5493:8: warning: 'h192' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] >> >> >> >> This happens only in gcc-4.7 and gcc-4.8 >> >> >> >>> 5 crypto/wp512.c:987:1: warning: the frame size of 1168 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=] >> >>> 1 crypto/wp512.c:987:1: warning: the frame size of 1112 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=] >> >> >> >> and this one only in gcc-4.7 >> >> >> >> Any chance we can update the toolchain on kernelci.org to 4.9 or higher? >> >> I'm normally testing with gcc-5.2, which has a little better warnings. >> > >> > I'm ok with upgrading to 4.9 or higher. Kevin any issues with this? >> >> No objection in principle, but we probably can't do this across the >> board without fallout. >> >> I suspect we'll have issues with older stable kernels that have never >> been compiled with > 4.7, but I haven't actually tried. >> > > My guess is that there is very little of that. We had one issues with > gcc-4.8 through 4.8.2 generating bad code, but aside of that I don't > remember a recent case where a newer compiler broke stuff. > > There might be a couple of extra warnings in older kernels, but I've > tried to ensure that all new warnings that got introduced from more > recent gcc versions are fixed mainline kernels. OK, and I guess if we find any breakage, fixes should be submitted to stable anyways, so I'm OK with the change. Kevin