On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 09:41:44AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Rustad, Mark D <mark.d.rus...@intel.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 22, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> 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 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
