From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=36263 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OqA07-0001B3-EI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:26:40 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1Oq9zc-00043S-K1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:26:09 -0400
Received: from mail-qw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.216.45]:53952)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1Oq9zc-0003xL-HU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:26:08 -0400
Received: by mail-qw0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 5so5433929qwh.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1283182547-26116-1-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
References: <1283182547-26116-1-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
From: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:25:48 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=JOeDmA10ogMF+mF=ur3tEyf1Lk7nNb+ovJbdq@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/14] gcc extra warning fixes
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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: Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

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.