Hi, On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? > The degree of acceptable verbosity should be left to the end user. >> > 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. > my mistake, I just checked, `-Wno-unused' does not affect the `warn_unused_result' warning. `-Wno-unused-result' is required to silent that one. >> 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. > Looks like I'll submit the patch implementing multiple warnings level then ;-) - Arnaud -- 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
