On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>> Ah, I see what you mean here. You want to distinguish >>> CFLAGS for gcc, CHECKER_FLAGS for sparse specific >>> flags. >> >> Err, ... well, yes and no! :-D >> >> The main idea is to separate the 'additional' flags passed to >> sparse for the $(CHECKER) target - not necessarily for sparse >> specific flags. Yes, my mental model was CHECKER_FLAGS for flags sparse to use. I haven't notice the small detail that -Wvla works for gcc as well. > Hmm, actually the following may be a better patch. what do you > think? Hmm. When I write the BASIC_CFLAGS, I was thinking to use it for the common part of the CFLAGS impact the whole directory or project. Some thing as base line, like architecture related stuff etc, nothing fancy. Each C file might have specific different requirement, like include path etc, Those goes to CFLAGS. The stuff get overwrite more often should have a slightly shorter name for readability. At least that was my mental model. Either one of the three we discuss here is acceptable. If you have to ask me to pick, my order goes to the simplest one line change, then introducing $(CHECKER_CFLAGS), then this one. Chris -- 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
