From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=57834 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OqL9r-0002bS-Mr
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 03:21:29 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1OqL9o-0002Nl-Mu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 03:21:25 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:4943)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>) id 1OqL9o-0002Nd-FU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 03:21:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4C7CAD70.9030705@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:21:20 +0200
From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/14] gcc extra warning fixes
References: <1283182547-26116-1-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
	<AANLkTi=JOeDmA10ogMF+mF=ur3tEyf1Lk7nNb+ovJbdq@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=JOeDmA10ogMF+mF=ur3tEyf1Lk7nNb+ovJbdq@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 08/30/10 21:25, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:35 PM,  <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com> wrote:
>> From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I started building QEMU with some more aggressive error flags to see
>> what dropped out. I started fixing up some of the cases, removing
>> unused arguments to functions, comparisons of unsigned types against
>> negative values etc. and a few other minor changes to avoid compiler
>> warnings.
> 
> If the patches make all such warnings disappear, you could also
> consider the same approach as taken by
> 7ccfb2eb5f9d91bdb4139cb420a3b5f8deb2f6e8 and
> ac41a6206fe9e1506010cd0aa9cf56ed3b37ae19.
> 
> If a GCC flag can be enabled, it should not be just -Wextra, because
> that means different things on different GCC versions, so please check
> also
>  a316e3788df2781fda119e801e9b3d753f89b752.

The one GCC flag I think we should enable, and probably was the one that
caught the most bugs in my patch set is this one: -Wtype-limits

There was only one false positive with this flag in block/blkdebug.c
where it bails on a < 0 comparison of an enum. enum doesn't seem to be
defined to being signed or unsigned, but a quick cast in that case would
make that single false positive go away.

Cheers,
Jes