Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/10] Sparse: Git's "make check" target

Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/10] Sparse: Git's "make check" target

[Josh Triplett]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7065 bytes --]

Ramsay Jones wrote:
> Since the Git Makefile has a "check" target that uses sparse, I decided to
> take a look at the sparse project to see what it was about, and what it
> has to say about the git source code.

Glad to hear it!

> Initially, I had many problems because I am using cygwin, but I was able to
> fix most of those problems. (the output from "make check" was about 16k
> lines at one point!). Git also tickled a bug in sparse 0.2, which resulted
> in some 120+ lines of bogus warnings; that was fixed in version 0.3 (commit
> 0.2-15-gef25961).  As a result, sparse version 0.3 + my patches, elicits 106
> lines of output from "make check".

One note about using Sparse with Git: you almost certainly don't want to pass
-Wall to sparse, and current Git passes CFLAGS to Sparse which will do exactly
that.  -Wall turns on all possible Sparse warnings, including nitpicky
warnings and warnings with a high false positive rate.  You should start from
the default set of Sparse warnings, and add additional warnings as desired, or
turn off those you absolutely can't live with.  Current Sparse from Git (post
0.3, after commit e18c1014449adf42520daa9d3e53f78a3d98da34) has a change to
cgcc to filter out -Wall, so you can pass -Wall to GCC but not Sparse.  See
below for other reasons why you should use cgcc.

That said, this suggests that perhaps Sparse should treat -Wall differently
for compatibility with GCC; specifically, perhaps Sparse should just ignore
-Wall, as its meaning with GCC (enable a reasonable default set of warnings)
already occurs by default in Sparse.  The current -Wall could become something
like -Weverything.  This would make Sparse somewhat less intuitive, but
somewhat more GCC compatible.

> Naturally, I decided to "fix" the warnings produced by sparse, which resulted
> in the following patch series:
> 
> [PATCH 01/10] Sparse: fix "non-ANSI function declaration" warnings
> [PATCH 02/10] Sparse: fix some "using integer as NULL pointer" warnings
> [PATCH 03/10] Sparse: fix some "symbol not declared" warnings (Part 1)
> [PATCH 04/10] Sparse: fix some "symbol not declared" warnings (Part 2)
> [PATCH 05/10] Sparse: fix some "symbol not declared" warnings (Part 3)
> [PATCH 06/10] Sparse: fix "'add_head' not declared" warning
> [PATCH 07/10] Sparse: fix "'merge_file' not declared" warning
> [PATCH 08/10] Sparse: fix an "incorrect type in argument n" warning
> [PATCH 09/10] Sparse: fix some "symbol 's' shadows an earlier one" warnings
> [PATCH 10/10] Sparse: fix a "symbol 'weak_match' shadows an earlier one" warning

Awesome.  I'll take a look at that patch series.

> However, this patch series does not completely remove all warnings; the output
> is reduced to:
> 
> builtin-pack-objects.c:312:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
> csum-file.c:152:22: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
> exec_cmd.c:7:40: error: undefined identifier 'GIT_EXEC_PATH'
> git.c:209:35: error: undefined identifier 'GIT_VERSION'
> http.c:203:46: error: undefined identifier 'GIT_USER_AGENT'
> index-pack.c:201:25: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
> index-pack.c:538:26: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer
> 
> The three "undefined identifier 'GIT_...'" are easy to remove, I just didn't
> get around to doing it (The GIT_... symbols are macros, defined in individual
> make rules rather than CFLAGS, an thus not passed to sparse).

You can easily fix that problem if you use cgcc as CC.

> The four "Using plain integer...", whilst equally easy to remove, arguably should
> not be ;-)  If you look at the code you will find they are all of the form
>     x = crc32(0, Z_NULL, 0);
> where the second parameter type is basically (unsigned char *) and the Z_NULL
> macro is defined in the zlib header file as 0.  It could be said that this is
> "idiomatic zlib usage" and should remain as written.  If you don't subscribe
> to that view, then the required patch is obvious :P)
[...]
> [Note: As far as the NULL pointer warnings are concerned, I don't much care either
> way. I just used that as an example (also note patch 02). Having said that, I
> do think that the "NULL is the only one true null pointer" brigade need to
> chill out a little; in fact I remember when 0 was the *only* null pointer.]

And at one point prototypes didn't exist either. :)

Other valid null pointers exist, such as (void *)0.  You could also use (char
*)0 in this particular case.  Sparse complains because you just use the
integer 0.  I suggest just using NULL.

If you want to keep using Z_NULL rather than NULL, you could always undef it
and define it as NULL after including the zlib header files.

If you really want to turn that particular Sparse warning off, you can use
-Wno-non-pointer-null.  However, I don't think you should do that.

> If you are on Linux and want to play along, then the official version 0.3
> release of sparse should work for you, along with a minor change to the
> Makefile thus:
> 
> --->8---
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index 19b6da1..ac3e2af 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ export TCL_PATH TCLTK_PATH
>  
>  # sparse is architecture-neutral, which means that we need to tell it
>  # explicitly what architecture to check for. Fix this up for yours..
> -SPARSE_FLAGS = -D__BIG_ENDIAN__ -D__powerpc__
> +SPARSE_FLAGS = -D__STDC__=1 $(shell cat .sparse_flags)
>  
> --->8---
> 
> where the .sparse_flags file is created with a script (gen-sparse-flags.sh)
> as follows:
> 
> --->8---
> #/bin/sh
> 
> rm -f /tmp/foo.h .macros; touch /tmp/foo.h
> 
> gcc -E -dM /tmp/foo.h >.macros
> sed -e "s/^#define /-D'/" -e "s/ /=/" -e "s/$/'/" <.macros >.sparse_flags 
> 
> rm -f /tmp/foo.h
> 
> --->8---

Note that you could do that much more simply by using:
gcc -E -dM -x c /dev/null | sed ...

However, see below about using cgcc instead.

> Note: setting __STDC__ in the SPARSE_FLAGS should not be necessary (I thought
> I needed it at one point...) but I didn't get around to removing it.

Sparse has defined __STDC__ since 2003, well before even version 0.1.

> As an alternative, you could clear the SPARSE_FLAGS and change the "check" target
> to call "cgcc -no-compile" in place of sparse.

Please go with that option.  In addition to providing an easy way to use
sparse and GCC together (make CC=cgcc), cgcc defines arch-specific flags that
sparse currently does not.  Ideally sparse should define these flags, but that
would add some architecture-specific logic to sparse, which would then require
sparse to know the desired machine target.  That may need to happen in the
future, but I don't have a good plan for how to do it yet.  In the meantime,
please run sparse through cgcc.

Also, you might consider just using cgcc to run both GCC and Sparse.  That
would handle the issue of target-specific CFLAGS, by ensuring that Sparse and
GCC always see the same CFLAGS.

- Josh Triplett



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/10] Sparse: Git's "make check" target

[Sam Ravnborg]

> 
> Also, you might consider just using cgcc to run both GCC and Sparse.  That
> would handle the issue of target-specific CFLAGS, by ensuring that Sparse and
> GCC always see the same CFLAGS.

Is this the recommended way?
I that case I suggest that someone looks into the linux kernel part
and change it to use this method.

	Sam

Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/10] Sparse: Git's "make check" target

[Josh Triplett]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 553 bytes --]

Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> Also, you might consider just using cgcc to run both GCC and Sparse.  That
>> would handle the issue of target-specific CFLAGS, by ensuring that Sparse and
>> GCC always see the same CFLAGS.
> 
> Is this the recommended way?
> I that case I suggest that someone looks into the linux kernel part
> and change it to use this method.

The approach taken by Linux allows running sparse on files without recompiling
them.  Using CC=cgcc just makes for less work, but the kernel has that work
done now.

- Josh Triplett


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/10] Sparse: Git's "make check" target

[Ramsay Jones]

Josh Triplett wrote:
> Ramsay Jones wrote:
>> fix most of those problems. (the output from "make check" was about 16k
>> lines at one point!). Git also tickled a bug in sparse 0.2, which resulted
>> in some 120+ lines of bogus warnings; that was fixed in version 0.3 (commit
>> 0.2-15-gef25961).  As a result, sparse version 0.3 + my patches, elicits 106
>> lines of output from "make check".
> 
> One note about using Sparse with Git: you almost certainly don't want to pass
> -Wall to sparse, and current Git passes CFLAGS to Sparse which will do exactly
> that.  -Wall turns on all possible Sparse warnings, including nitpicky
> warnings and warnings with a high false positive rate.

I have to say that, my initial reaction, was to disagree; I certainly want to
pass -Wall to sparse! Why not? Did you have any particular warnings in mind?
(I haven't noticed any that were nitpicky or had a high false positive rate!)

...  You should start from
> the default set of Sparse warnings, and add additional warnings as desired, or
> turn off those you absolutely can't live with.  

Why not "-Wall -Wno-nitpicky -Wno-false-positive" ;-)

... Current Sparse from Git (post
> 0.3, after commit e18c1014449adf42520daa9d3e53f78a3d98da34) has a change to
> cgcc to filter out -Wall, so you can pass -Wall to GCC but not Sparse.  

Yes, I noticed that. Again, I'm not sure I agree.
I didn't comment on that patch, because my exposure to sparse is very limited.
So far I've only run it on git, so I can hardly claim any great experience with
the output from sparse. However, 105 lines of output (which represents 71 warnings)
for 72,974 lines of C (in 179 .c files) did not seem at all unreasonable.

>> [Note: As far as the NULL pointer warnings are concerned, I don't much care either
>> way. I just used that as an example (also note patch 02). Having said that, I
>> do think that the "NULL is the only one true null pointer" brigade need to
>> chill out a little; in fact I remember when 0 was the *only* null pointer.]
> 
> And at one point prototypes didn't exist either. :)

Yes, but that was actually an improvement to the language ;-)

(As I say above, I don't really care about the NULL pointer example; I hope
the main point was not lost)

All the Best,

Ramsay Jones

Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/10] Sparse: Git's "make check" target

[Josh Triplett]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2811 bytes --]

Ramsay Jones wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
>> Ramsay Jones wrote:
>>> fix most of those problems. (the output from "make check" was about 16k
>>> lines at one point!). Git also tickled a bug in sparse 0.2, which resulted
>>> in some 120+ lines of bogus warnings; that was fixed in version 0.3 (commit
>>> 0.2-15-gef25961).  As a result, sparse version 0.3 + my patches, elicits 106
>>> lines of output from "make check".
>> One note about using Sparse with Git: you almost certainly don't want to pass
>> -Wall to sparse, and current Git passes CFLAGS to Sparse which will do exactly
>> that.  -Wall turns on all possible Sparse warnings, including nitpicky
>> warnings and warnings with a high false positive rate.
> 
> I have to say that, my initial reaction, was to disagree; I certainly want to
> pass -Wall to sparse! Why not? Did you have any particular warnings in mind?
> (I haven't noticed any that were nitpicky or had a high false positive rate!)

If you don't mind the set of warnings you get, then sure, use -Wall.

Some of the ones I had in mind:
* -Wshadow.  Not everyone cares.
* -Wptr-subtraction-blows.  This warns any time you do ptr2 - ptr1.
* -Wundefined-preprocessor.  This warns if you ever do
  #if SYMBOL
  when SYMBOL might not actually have a definition.  Many projects do exactly
  that, and the C standard allows it.
* -Wtypesign.  Off by default for the same reason that GCC doesn't give sign
   mismatches by default: too many codebases with too many sloppy signedness
   issues that drown out other issues.

> ...  You should start from
>> the default set of Sparse warnings, and add additional warnings as desired, or
>> turn off those you absolutely can't live with.  
> 
> Why not "-Wall -Wno-nitpicky -Wno-false-positive" ;-)

If you don't mind that, then sure.  You might have to adjust the warning list
to taste from time to time.  But please do use -Wall if you feel comfortable
with the warnings it produces.

> ... Current Sparse from Git (post
>> 0.3, after commit e18c1014449adf42520daa9d3e53f78a3d98da34) has a change to
>> cgcc to filter out -Wall, so you can pass -Wall to GCC but not Sparse.  
> 
> Yes, I noticed that. Again, I'm not sure I agree.
> I didn't comment on that patch, because my exposure to sparse is very limited.
> So far I've only run it on git, so I can hardly claim any great experience with
> the output from sparse. However, 105 lines of output (which represents 71 warnings)
> for 72,974 lines of C (in 179 .c files) did not seem at all unreasonable.

True; for a project the size of Git, you can reasonably handle all the
warnings as you did.

If you want to use -Wall with sparse, you can always pass -Wall to sparse
directly, or use CHECK="sparse -Wall" cgcc.  

- Josh Triplett


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]