Josh Triplett wrote: > Ramsay Jones wrote: >> fix most of those problems. (the output from "make check" was about 16k >> lines at one point!). Git also tickled a bug in sparse 0.2, which resulted >> in some 120+ lines of bogus warnings; that was fixed in version 0.3 (commit >> 0.2-15-gef25961). As a result, sparse version 0.3 + my patches, elicits 106 >> lines of output from "make check". > > One note about using Sparse with Git: you almost certainly don't want to pass > -Wall to sparse, and current Git passes CFLAGS to Sparse which will do exactly > that. -Wall turns on all possible Sparse warnings, including nitpicky > warnings and warnings with a high false positive rate. I have to say that, my initial reaction, was to disagree; I certainly want to pass -Wall to sparse! Why not? Did you have any particular warnings in mind? (I haven't noticed any that were nitpicky or had a high false positive rate!) ... You should start from > the default set of Sparse warnings, and add additional warnings as desired, or > turn off those you absolutely can't live with. Why not "-Wall -Wno-nitpicky -Wno-false-positive" ;-) ... Current Sparse from Git (post > 0.3, after commit e18c1014449adf42520daa9d3e53f78a3d98da34) has a change to > cgcc to filter out -Wall, so you can pass -Wall to GCC but not Sparse. Yes, I noticed that. Again, I'm not sure I agree. I didn't comment on that patch, because my exposure to sparse is very limited. So far I've only run it on git, so I can hardly claim any great experience with the output from sparse. However, 105 lines of output (which represents 71 warnings) for 72,974 lines of C (in 179 .c files) did not seem at all unreasonable. >> [Note: As far as the NULL pointer warnings are concerned, I don't much care either >> way. I just used that as an example (also note patch 02). Having said that, I >> do think that the "NULL is the only one true null pointer" brigade need to >> chill out a little; in fact I remember when 0 was the *only* null pointer.] > > And at one point prototypes didn't exist either. :) Yes, but that was actually an improvement to the language ;-) (As I say above, I don't really care about the NULL pointer example; I hope the main point was not lost) All the Best, Ramsay Jones - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
