Re: [PATCH] m32r: set CHECKFLAGS properly

Al Viro
2005-09-27T17:55:30Z

On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 01:31:25PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > 3) way, way, *WAY* too much spew. gcc pre-defines shitloads of
> >stuff and some of that stuff very definitely should not be there
> >for sparse.
>
> Why not? Some of that stuff may get used in kernel headers, which
> sparse should definitely have defined. Besides, sparse is designed
> to check C source code, which will be compiled with said GCC using
> those preprocessing defines. Why should it use a different set of
> defines?

First of all, some of that stuff should not be used in kernel headers
and getting a warning about such uses is a Good Thing(tm). What's
more, some are actively *wrong* for kernel - __STDC_HOSTED__, for one,
is simply a lie. And no, sparse (or any other C compiler) is not
required to have the same pile as gcc does.

There's another reason why limited subset is good - it documents the
subset we are using. And having to reach gcc source just to figure
out which architectures might have given symbol... No, thanks.