On 2023-07-31 15:17:18+0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > > It will help the developers to avoid cruft and detect some bugs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile > > index f42adef87e12..72227d75c6da 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile > > @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ endif > > CFLAGS_s390 = -m64 > > CFLAGS_mips = -EL > > CFLAGS_STACKPROTECTOR ?= $(call cc-option,-mstack-protector-guard=global $(call cc-option,-fstack-protector-all)) > > -CFLAGS ?= -Os -fno-ident -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -std=c89 \ > > +CFLAGS ?= -Os -fno-ident -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -std=c89 -Wall \ > > Very good static analyzer support. > > What about further add more options? > > +CFLAGS ?= -Os -fno-ident -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -std=c89 -Wall -Wextra -Werror\ > > A simple test shows, it can catch more issues. -Wextra will need some further rework for 32bit architectures to avoid some warnings. (At least mips for which I tested it) I don't think -Werror is appropriate. If we want to test the functioning of nolibc with weird compilers these may very well add new warnings and that shouldn't break the build. > > Thanks, > Zhangjin > > > $(call cc-option,-fno-stack-protector) \ > > $(CFLAGS_$(ARCH)) $(CFLAGS_STACKPROTECTOR) > > LDFLAGS := -s > > > > -- > > 2.41.0
