Re: [2.6 patch] add -Werror-implicit-function-declaration to CFLAGS

From: Adrian Bunk (bunk_at_stusta.de)
Date: 11/24/05

  • Next message: Greg Kroah-Hartman: "[patch 08/22] hwmon: hdaps missing an axis" 
    Date:	Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:13:05 +0100
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>

    On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:50:35PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
    > >
    > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:09:05PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > > Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > Currently, using an undeclared function gives a compile warning, but it
    > > > > can lead to a nasty runtime error if the prototype of the function is
    > > > > different from what gcc guessed.
    > > > >
    > > > > With -Werror-implicit-function-declaration, we are getting an immediate
    > > > > compile error instead.
    > > >
    > > > Where "we" == "me". This patch means I get to fix all the errors which I
    > > > encounter. No fair. This should be the last patch, not the first.
    > >
    > > Is it my fault that you applied neither Al Viro's patches to remove the
    > > usages of the ISA legacy functions
    >
    > Never saw them.

    It's the patch series starting with
      http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0511.1/2685.html

    > > nor my patch to mark
    > > virt_to_bus/bus_to_virt as __deprecated on i386?
    >
    > That won't make powerpc compile.

    Judging from the feedback when I sent this patch first, there are people
    who might notice and actually fix these issues.

    > Plus there are various other unfixed functions around the tree with various
    > .configs.

    And it's my job to fix every single such bug before you'd accept
    -Werror-implicit-function-declaration in the CFLAGS?

    Yes, these are bugs.
    And yes, they do already generate warnings.

    > It took about four releases to teach people that the jsm driver won't
    > compile. I don't want to go adding things to -mm which break it in this
    > way - that causes us to lose testers.

    -Werror-implicit-function-declaration helps us to avoid a class of
    hard to find _runtime_ errors.

    I'm already sending patches to fix all the warnings with
    -Wmissing-prototypes (which is roughly spoken the other side of the
    implicit-function-declaration issue) at least on i386 before I'm
    proposing to add this flag to the global CFLAGS, and while doing this
    I've already found and fixed three _runtime_ errors.

    But judging from your comments you might then reject
    -Wmissing-prototypes because it causes warnings on other
    architectures...

    IMHO reducing the number of hard to find runtime errors is more
    important than to get allmodconfig compiling in every -mm
    on all architectures.

    > The patch is a good one, but it should come last.

    Instead of telling me that I have to fix compile breakages with all
    possible .config's on all architectures before you would accept my
    patch, couldn't you be honest and simply tell me to *** off?

    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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
  • Next message: Greg Kroah-Hartman: "[patch 08/22] hwmon: hdaps missing an axis"
    • Quantcast