* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:41:44AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Rustad, Mark D <mark.d.rustad@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 22, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 08:59:32PM +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote: > > > >> Because I have found that enabling many warnings helps identify problems > > > >> in code and it has been my standard practice since about 1999 to do so. > > > >> The compiler warnings are really just another form of static analysis, > > > >> and I use it routinely on every compile. Here is how routinely: I have > > > >> W=1 in my environment, W=12 is just too painful. I would change that > > > >> default to W=12 if it wasn't insane to do so. > > > > > > > > Many warnings are just plain insane and stupid. They're not > > > > helping anybody. There's a very good reason many are > > > > disabled. I'm sure you can find some entertaining discussions > > > > on the topic if you search the LKML archives. > > > > > > That is what I used to think. -Wshadow for example. What's the > > > problem? [...] > > > > Then please add it to the default build. There are some warnings > > that used to be crap but have been improved over the year - > > enable them one by one, with good case by case justification and > > analysis. Just going after all W=2 warnings is insane. So by 'try to add it' I mean -Wshadow, which is a useful warning that I use in user-space projects as well: it does catch bogosities and isn't annoyingly inaccurate. > So I don't like the nested extern one because it either means > not using that language feature at all or pooping all over your > code with that DECL crap. That just a loose-loose proposition. Agreed. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
