On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 10:34:57PM -0500, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 12:00:47PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> >> > +EXTRA_CFLAGS += -Wextra -Wno-unused
> >>
> >> Why add -Wno-unused ?
> >>
> >> If it's because of verbosity, maybe
> >
> > Nah, it's because it is too noisy and spits too many false positives.
> >
> "too noisy" is a subjective point of view.
Ok, does "too many false positives" objectify it a bit more to your
taste?
> > For example, it reports the arguments of all those stubs from the
> > headers which are provided for the else-branch of a CONFIG_* option,
> > etc.
> >
> and by the same way, you silence function marked with
> `warn_unused_result', unless I misread the manpage.
Can you point me to that passage, I cannot find it in my gcc manpage.
> If you want to silence something specific, why not just the `no'
> variant of the thing you do not want ?
Yes, '-Wunused -Wno-unused-parameter' looks better.
> Btw, could you not take the same approach as the one taken by the BSD,
> which is 3 or 4 different level of new warnings. That way, you keep
> the noisy stuff for the highest warning level.
Nope, because there's no reason for it. I want to have one switch that
craps out all the possible warnings gcc can spit, I catch the build
output, fix the bugs and that's it.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
