On 27/06/2017 11:03, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 27.06.2017 10:53, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> On 27/06/2017 10:33, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> On 27.06.2017 10:24, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 27.06.2017 06:18, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>>> The intercept test currently can not be compiled with GCC 4.8 anymore.
>>>>> It generates the following warning (which is fatal due to -Werror):
>>>>>
>>>>> s390x/intercept.c: In function ‘test_stidp’:
>>>>> s390x/intercept.c:111:9: error: missing initializer for field ‘version’ of ‘struct cpuid’ [-Werror=missing-field-initializers]
>>>>> struct cpuid id = {};
>>>>> ^
>>>>> Fix it by using a "0" as intializer here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> NB: We could also remove the -Wextra from the CFLAGS instead. IMHO
>>>>> using -Wextra together with -Werror is just like playing Russian roulette.
>>>>> Since -Wextra is some kind of "compiler warning playground" for the GCC
>>>>> folks, you never know which compiler version will trigger an unexpected
>>>>> (and often also unfounded) warning here, so using this together with -Werror
>>>>> is just a nuisance.
>>>>
>>>> I agree, this is really not deterministic.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> s390x/intercept.c | 2 +-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/s390x/intercept.c b/s390x/intercept.c
>>>>> index 9766289..9fe86cf 100644
>>>>> --- a/s390x/intercept.c
>>>>> +++ b/s390x/intercept.c
>>>>> @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static void test_stap(void)
>>>>> /* Test the STORE CPU ID instruction */
>>>>> static void test_stidp(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> - struct cpuid id = {};
>>>>> + struct cpuid id = { 0 };
>>>>>
>>>>> asm volatile ("stidp %0\n" : "+Q"(id));
>>>>> report("type set", id.type);
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> arm and powerpc also use -Wextra, maybe we should remove this then for all.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever you prefer.
>>>
>>> True ... maybe Drew and Laurent can also comment on whether they like
>>> -Wextra or not ... if we all agree, then we can remove it, otherwise
>>> let's try to go with this patch first (in the hope that we won't hit the
>>> next problem too soon).
>>
>> I like -Wextra :)
>>
>> My opinion is more checking we have, less error we have.
>
> The problem is that -Wextra often produces unfounded or even wrong
> warnings, like in this case. I'd prefer to add the individual parameters
> that rather always make sense instead, like -Wtype-limits for example.
I agree, removing -Wextra and adding individual parameters seems to be a
good solution.
Laurent
