Re: [PATCH] move some more intilization out of drivers/char/mem.c

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>]

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:54:30AM +0300, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 11:48:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please compile-test things...
> > > 
> > >  Well, I compiled this here.  I see, looks like I lost half of the patch
> > >  when sending it to you.  Sorryh for that, here's the full patch:
> > 
> > It still generates warnings.  I suggest you build kernels with a script
> > which saves up stderr and spits it all out at the end.  That way, these
> > things are noticed.
> 
> This might be a good time to recommend -Werror. Last time it came up
> (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102654562025374&w=2),
> Alan was dead set against it, and Linus did not apply it, but did
> think it had some merit
> (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102658611213914&w=2). 
> 
> Compiling 2.6.0-t5-cvs with my .config and -Werror uncovered only two
> warnings. Patches sent seperately. 
>...

In 2.6, warnings are very visible, and many people are working on 
reducing the number of warning.

A full build of 2.6 gives between 200 and 300 warnings with gcc 3.3 
including harmless ones.

You get several "unused variable" warnings when you disable e.g.
CONFIG_PROC_FS.

When compiling with a different compiler version (e.g. 2.95) you get a 
similar number of warnings, but different warnings.

Some warnings are the fault of gcc (and noone will fix gcc 2.95 or the 
unofficial gcc 2.96).


Adding -Werror will turn into a maintenance nightmare.


> Muli Ben-Yehuda

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