On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jon Flatley <jflat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 8:45 AM Nathan Chancellor > <natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 05:26:05PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 6:10 AM <jflat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Jon Flatley <jflat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > gcc produces format warnings that clang suppresses. To keep behavior > > > > consistent between gcc and clang, don't suppress format warnings in > > > > clang. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jon Flatley <jflat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > > > Applied to linux-kbuild. > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jon and Masahiro, > > > > Just as a heads up, this introduces a ton of warnings (duh). Isn't the > > typical plan behind turning on warnings that were disabled to build with > > 'W=', fix them all, then turn them on so as not to pollute the build? > > > > Log file: https://gist.github.com/443db156e56cd3c0f6b21d9d77728d80 Oh boy, that's a lot. Too many to fix quickly IMO. > > > > Note a big chunk of them come from one scnprintf call in > > include/linux/usb/wusb.h but still, there are many other warnings that > > make quite a bit of noise. Some seem relatively easy to fix, which I > > suppose I will try to tackle soon. > > > > Thanks, > > Nathan > > > > Hi Nathan, > > This was definitely not my intention. > I noticed the added warnings this morning and was considering calling > for a revert on this patch. > > The intent was to match the behavior of gcc, as it has -Wformat enabled. > It was rather naive of me to assume the behavior of -Wformat would be > the same in both gcc and clang. > Indeed, it seems gcc is more permissive about what format > substitutions it allows. > > For example passing int to the "%hu" format specifier is fine in gcc > under -Wformat but produces a warning in clang. > Maybe this was the motivation for adding -Wno-format to clang in the > first place. Sorry, I'm late to this thread. What is it reverting; who authored the original patch? Was it mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx? > This difference is puzzling to me, and I wonder if it's by design. Probably; internally let's sync up with the Clang devs to understand this difference more. > > Considering the whole point of this patch was to sync up this behavior > between gcc and clang I am OK with reverting this. Is this patch in -next, or has it already hit mainline? I think it's better to revert, then start upstreaming fixes, then re-land it once we're warning free. -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
