On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 04:37:55PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2018, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:44:38PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> > >> +Knut, Fengguang > >> > >> On Fri, 02 Feb 2018, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > - If clang now builds the kernel "cleanly", yes, I want to take > >> > warning fixes in the stable tree. And even better yet, if you > >> > keep working to ensure the tree is "clean", that would be > >> > wonderful. > >> > >> So we can run sparse using 'make C=1' and friends, or other static > >> analysis tools using 'make CHECK=foo C=1', as long as the passed command > >> line params work. There was work by Knut to extend this make checker > >> stuff [1]. Since mixing different HOSTCC's in a single workdir seems > >> like a bad idea, I wonder how hard it would be to make clang work like > >> this: > >> > >> $ make CHECK=clang C=1 > >> > >> Or using Knut's wrapper. Feels like that could increase the use of clang > >> for static analysis of patches. > > > > Why not just build with clang itself: > > make CC=clang > > Same as HOSTCC, mixing different CC's in a single build dir seems like a > bad idea. Sure, everyone can setup a separate build dir for clang, but > IMHO having 'make CHECK=clang C=1' work has least resistance. YMMV. "O=some_output_dir" is your friend. If you aren't doing that already for your test builds, you don't know what you are missing :) thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
