* Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> 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 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-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/
