On Wed, 25 Jan 2017, Markus Heiser <markus.heiser@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 25.01.2017 um 09:21 schrieb Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>: >> Yes, see below. It's simplistic and it has an external dependency, but >> it got the job done. And it does not depend on Sphinx; it's just a >> kernel-doc and rst lint, not Sphinx lint. Whether that's a good or a bad >> thing is debatable. >> >> Anyway, I do think the approach of making 'make CHECK=the-tool C=1' work >> is what we should aim at. > > Ah, cool ... didn't know C=1 before .. I will consider it in v2. > >> Markus' patch could probably be made to do >> that by accepting the same arguments that are passed to compilers. > > Is this what you mean? No. The build system passes the same (or roughly the same) arguments to the CHECK tool as it passes to the compiler. You need to handle them in your tool, possibly just ignoring them if they're not relevant. BR, Jani. > > make W=n [targets] Enable extra gcc checks, n=1,2,3 where > 1: warnings which may be relevant and do not occur too often > 2: warnings which occur quite often but may still be relevant > 3: more obscure warnings, can most likely be ignored > Multiple levels can be combined with W=12 or W=123 > > Thanks! > > --Markus-- > -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
