On Wed, 2019-03-20 at 08:59 -0400, Khem Raj wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:21 AM Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:51:47PM -0400, Khem Raj wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 6:45 AM Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> > > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 05:41:58PM +0800, > > > > changqing...@windriver.com wrote: > > > > > From: Changqing Li <changqing...@windriver.com> > > > > > > > > > > while compiled with -Werror=maybe-uninitialized/- > > > > > Werror=format-overflow=, > > > > > it failed > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > Incremental.c: In function 'Incremental_container': > > > > > > Incremental.c:1593:3: error: 'mdfd' may be used > > > > > > uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe- > > > > > > uninitialized] > > > > > > close(mdfd); > > > > > > ^~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > super-intel.c: In function 'apply_takeover_update': > > > > > > super-intel.c:9615:15: error: '%d' directive writing > > > > > > between 1 and 11 bytes into a region of size 7 [- > > > > > > Werror=format-overflow=] > > > > > > " MISSING_%d", du->index); > > > > > > ^~ > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > I am seeing these warnings only with -Og, are you also seeing > > > > them with > > > > -Og (DEBUG_OPTIMIZATION) only? > > > > > > > > If this is true, I would consider > > > > https://sources.debian.org/src/mdadm/4.1-2/debian/patches/debian-no-Werror.diff/ > > > > a better workaround. > > > > > > > This seems a broader brush, I really dont like to relegate Werror > > > if > > > we dont have to, because it will force us > > > to fix the code. > > > > How are we getting such fixes properly reviewed? > > > > What actually happens is that the easiest change that silences a > > warning > > gets applied. > > > > And for such bogus -Og only warnings there was no problem in the > > code, > > so then probably a better fix is to add -Wno-error to DEBUG_FLAGS > which will limit it to -Og case, and revert the original fix. > > > > > meaning regression risks by OE/Yocto-only patches without fixing > > anything. > > > > > However, I am seeing it fail with clang now > > > > > > https://errors.yoctoproject.org/Errors/Details/233618/ > > > > This is caused by the "fix" for the -Og gcc warning. > > > > Which looks bogus, and might be harmful. > > I think that is right. the fix seems to be regressing on gcc 9 as > well so it has to be done differently.
Agreed, we should revert it, its creating more problems than it solves. Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
