On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:28:54AM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> 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.
Fine by me. I'll happily review whatever somebody posts :-)
Thanks,
drew
