Re: [PATCH] kbuild, LLVMLinux: Add -Werror to cc-option to support clang
2017-04-01 5:38 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann: > From: Mark Charlebois > > Clang will warn about unknown warnings but will not return false > unless -Werror is set. GCC will return false if an unknown > warning is passed. > > Adding -Werror make both compiler behave the same. > > [arnd: it turns out we need the same patch for testing whether > -ffunction-sections >works right with gcc. I've build tested extensively with this patch >applied, so let's just merge this one now.] > > Signed-off-by: Mark Charlebois > Signed-off-by: Behan Webster > Reviewed-by: Jan-Simon Möller > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann Applied to linux-kbuild/kbuild. Thanks! -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Re: [PATCH] kbuild, LLVMLinux: Add -Werror to cc-option to support clang
2017-04-01 5:38 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann : > From: Mark Charlebois > > Clang will warn about unknown warnings but will not return false > unless -Werror is set. GCC will return false if an unknown > warning is passed. > > Adding -Werror make both compiler behave the same. > > [arnd: it turns out we need the same patch for testing whether > -ffunction-sections >works right with gcc. I've build tested extensively with this patch >applied, so let's just merge this one now.] > > Signed-off-by: Mark Charlebois > Signed-off-by: Behan Webster > Reviewed-by: Jan-Simon Möller > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann Applied to linux-kbuild/kbuild. Thanks! -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Re: [PATCH] kbuild, LLVMLinux: Add -Werror to cc-option to support clang
Hi Arnd, 2017-04-03 6:46 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada: > Hi Arnd, > > > 2017-04-01 5:38 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann : >> From: Mark Charlebois >> >> Clang will warn about unknown warnings but will not return false >> unless -Werror is set. GCC will return false if an unknown >> warning is passed. >> >> Adding -Werror make both compiler behave the same. >> >> [arnd: it turns out we need the same patch for testing whether >> -ffunction-sections >>works right with gcc. I've build tested extensively with this patch >>applied, so let's just merge this one now.] >> >> Signed-off-by: Mark Charlebois >> Signed-off-by: Behan Webster >> Reviewed-by: Jan-Simon Möller >> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann > > > Thank you for forwarding this patch. > > > The code diff looks good to me, > but I'd like to be sure about git-log before applying it. > > > As far as I tested, the statement > "Clang will warn about unknown warnings but will not > return false unless -Werror is set." does not seem true > on recent versions. > > > > [1] When I use version 3.3 > > masahiro@grover:~$ clang --version > clang version 3.3 (tags/RELEASE_33/final) > Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu > Thread model: posix > masahiro@grover:~$ clang -foobar -c -x c /dev/null > clang: warning: argument unused during compilation: '-foobar' > masahiro@grover:~$ echo $? > 0 > > > [2] When I use version 3.4 > > masahiro@grover:~$ clang --version > clang version 3.4 (tags/RELEASE_34/final) > Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu > Thread model: posix > masahiro@grover:~$ clang -foobar -c -x c /dev/null > clang: error: unknown argument: '-foobar' > masahiro@grover:~$ echo $? > 1 > > > > > I agree we can apply this patch anyway > even if the original motivation is not true anymore. > > > Can you check it out, > and add a little more comments if you agree? Sorry. This was my misunderstanding. You do not have to answer my question. I found this patch is still useful for recent clang versions. I will apply this patch shortly. Thanks! -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Re: [PATCH] kbuild, LLVMLinux: Add -Werror to cc-option to support clang
Hi Arnd, 2017-04-03 6:46 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada : > Hi Arnd, > > > 2017-04-01 5:38 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann : >> From: Mark Charlebois >> >> Clang will warn about unknown warnings but will not return false >> unless -Werror is set. GCC will return false if an unknown >> warning is passed. >> >> Adding -Werror make both compiler behave the same. >> >> [arnd: it turns out we need the same patch for testing whether >> -ffunction-sections >>works right with gcc. I've build tested extensively with this patch >>applied, so let's just merge this one now.] >> >> Signed-off-by: Mark Charlebois >> Signed-off-by: Behan Webster >> Reviewed-by: Jan-Simon Möller >> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann > > > Thank you for forwarding this patch. > > > The code diff looks good to me, > but I'd like to be sure about git-log before applying it. > > > As far as I tested, the statement > "Clang will warn about unknown warnings but will not > return false unless -Werror is set." does not seem true > on recent versions. > > > > [1] When I use version 3.3 > > masahiro@grover:~$ clang --version > clang version 3.3 (tags/RELEASE_33/final) > Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu > Thread model: posix > masahiro@grover:~$ clang -foobar -c -x c /dev/null > clang: warning: argument unused during compilation: '-foobar' > masahiro@grover:~$ echo $? > 0 > > > [2] When I use version 3.4 > > masahiro@grover:~$ clang --version > clang version 3.4 (tags/RELEASE_34/final) > Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu > Thread model: posix > masahiro@grover:~$ clang -foobar -c -x c /dev/null > clang: error: unknown argument: '-foobar' > masahiro@grover:~$ echo $? > 1 > > > > > I agree we can apply this patch anyway > even if the original motivation is not true anymore. > > > Can you check it out, > and add a little more comments if you agree? Sorry. This was my misunderstanding. You do not have to answer my question. I found this patch is still useful for recent clang versions. I will apply this patch shortly. Thanks! -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Re: [PATCH] kbuild, LLVMLinux: Add -Werror to cc-option to support clang
Hi Arnd, 2017-04-01 5:38 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann: > From: Mark Charlebois > > Clang will warn about unknown warnings but will not return false > unless -Werror is set. GCC will return false if an unknown > warning is passed. > > Adding -Werror make both compiler behave the same. > > [arnd: it turns out we need the same patch for testing whether > -ffunction-sections >works right with gcc. I've build tested extensively with this patch >applied, so let's just merge this one now.] > > Signed-off-by: Mark Charlebois > Signed-off-by: Behan Webster > Reviewed-by: Jan-Simon Möller > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann Thank you for forwarding this patch. The code diff looks good to me, but I'd like to be sure about git-log before applying it. As far as I tested, the statement "Clang will warn about unknown warnings but will not return false unless -Werror is set." does not seem true on recent versions. [1] When I use version 3.3 masahiro@grover:~$ clang --version clang version 3.3 (tags/RELEASE_33/final) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix masahiro@grover:~$ clang -foobar -c -x c /dev/null clang: warning: argument unused during compilation: '-foobar' masahiro@grover:~$ echo $? 0 [2] When I use version 3.4 masahiro@grover:~$ clang --version clang version 3.4 (tags/RELEASE_34/final) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix masahiro@grover:~$ clang -foobar -c -x c /dev/null clang: error: unknown argument: '-foobar' masahiro@grover:~$ echo $? 1 I agree we can apply this patch anyway even if the original motivation is not true anymore. Can you check it out, and add a little more comments if you agree? -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Re: [PATCH] kbuild, LLVMLinux: Add -Werror to cc-option to support clang
Hi Arnd, 2017-04-01 5:38 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann : > From: Mark Charlebois > > Clang will warn about unknown warnings but will not return false > unless -Werror is set. GCC will return false if an unknown > warning is passed. > > Adding -Werror make both compiler behave the same. > > [arnd: it turns out we need the same patch for testing whether > -ffunction-sections >works right with gcc. I've build tested extensively with this patch >applied, so let's just merge this one now.] > > Signed-off-by: Mark Charlebois > Signed-off-by: Behan Webster > Reviewed-by: Jan-Simon Möller > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann Thank you for forwarding this patch. The code diff looks good to me, but I'd like to be sure about git-log before applying it. As far as I tested, the statement "Clang will warn about unknown warnings but will not return false unless -Werror is set." does not seem true on recent versions. [1] When I use version 3.3 masahiro@grover:~$ clang --version clang version 3.3 (tags/RELEASE_33/final) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix masahiro@grover:~$ clang -foobar -c -x c /dev/null clang: warning: argument unused during compilation: '-foobar' masahiro@grover:~$ echo $? 0 [2] When I use version 3.4 masahiro@grover:~$ clang --version clang version 3.4 (tags/RELEASE_34/final) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix masahiro@grover:~$ clang -foobar -c -x c /dev/null clang: error: unknown argument: '-foobar' masahiro@grover:~$ echo $? 1 I agree we can apply this patch anyway even if the original motivation is not true anymore. Can you check it out, and add a little more comments if you agree? -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Re: [PATCH] kbuild, LLVMLinux: Add -Werror to cc-option to support clang
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Arnd Bergmannwrote: > From: Mark Charlebois > > Clang will warn about unknown warnings but will not return false > unless -Werror is set. GCC will return false if an unknown > warning is passed. > > Adding -Werror make both compiler behave the same. > > [arnd: it turns out we need the same patch for testing whether > -ffunction-sections >works right with gcc. I've build tested extensively with this patch >applied, so let's just merge this one now.] > > Signed-off-by: Mark Charlebois > Signed-off-by: Behan Webster > Reviewed-by: Jan-Simon Möller > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann Acked-by: Kees Cook -Kees > --- > scripts/Kbuild.include | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/scripts/Kbuild.include b/scripts/Kbuild.include > index d6ca649cb0e9..a70fd26204de 100644 > --- a/scripts/Kbuild.include > +++ b/scripts/Kbuild.include > @@ -116,12 +116,12 @@ CC_OPTION_CFLAGS = $(filter-out > $(GCC_PLUGINS_CFLAGS),$(KBUILD_CFLAGS)) > # Usage: cflags-y += $(call cc-option,-march=winchip-c6,-march=i586) > > cc-option = $(call try-run,\ > - $(CC) $(KBUILD_CPPFLAGS) $(CC_OPTION_CFLAGS) $(1) -c -x c /dev/null > -o "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) > + $(CC) -Werror $(KBUILD_CPPFLAGS) $(CC_OPTION_CFLAGS) $(1) -c -x c > /dev/null -o "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) > > # cc-option-yn > # Usage: flag := $(call cc-option-yn,-march=winchip-c6) > cc-option-yn = $(call try-run,\ > - $(CC) $(KBUILD_CPPFLAGS) $(CC_OPTION_CFLAGS) $(1) -c -x c /dev/null > -o "$$TMP",y,n) > + $(CC) -Werror $(KBUILD_CPPFLAGS) $(CC_OPTION_CFLAGS) $(1) -c -x c > /dev/null -o "$$TMP",y,n) > > # cc-option-align > # Prefix align with either -falign or -malign > @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ cc-option-align = $(subst -functions=0,,\ > # cc-disable-warning > # Usage: cflags-y += $(call cc-disable-warning,unused-but-set-variable) > cc-disable-warning = $(call try-run,\ > - $(CC) $(KBUILD_CPPFLAGS) $(CC_OPTION_CFLAGS) -W$(strip $(1)) -c -x c > /dev/null -o "$$TMP",-Wno-$(strip $(1))) > + $(CC) -Werror $(KBUILD_CPPFLAGS) $(CC_OPTION_CFLAGS) -W$(strip $(1)) > -c -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",-Wno-$(strip $(1))) > > # cc-name > # Expands to either gcc or clang > -- > 2.9.0 > -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
Re: [PATCH] kbuild, LLVMLinux: Add -Werror to cc-option to support clang
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > From: Mark Charlebois > > Clang will warn about unknown warnings but will not return false > unless -Werror is set. GCC will return false if an unknown > warning is passed. > > Adding -Werror make both compiler behave the same. > > [arnd: it turns out we need the same patch for testing whether > -ffunction-sections >works right with gcc. I've build tested extensively with this patch >applied, so let's just merge this one now.] > > Signed-off-by: Mark Charlebois > Signed-off-by: Behan Webster > Reviewed-by: Jan-Simon Möller > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann Acked-by: Kees Cook -Kees > --- > scripts/Kbuild.include | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/scripts/Kbuild.include b/scripts/Kbuild.include > index d6ca649cb0e9..a70fd26204de 100644 > --- a/scripts/Kbuild.include > +++ b/scripts/Kbuild.include > @@ -116,12 +116,12 @@ CC_OPTION_CFLAGS = $(filter-out > $(GCC_PLUGINS_CFLAGS),$(KBUILD_CFLAGS)) > # Usage: cflags-y += $(call cc-option,-march=winchip-c6,-march=i586) > > cc-option = $(call try-run,\ > - $(CC) $(KBUILD_CPPFLAGS) $(CC_OPTION_CFLAGS) $(1) -c -x c /dev/null > -o "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) > + $(CC) -Werror $(KBUILD_CPPFLAGS) $(CC_OPTION_CFLAGS) $(1) -c -x c > /dev/null -o "$$TMP",$(1),$(2)) > > # cc-option-yn > # Usage: flag := $(call cc-option-yn,-march=winchip-c6) > cc-option-yn = $(call try-run,\ > - $(CC) $(KBUILD_CPPFLAGS) $(CC_OPTION_CFLAGS) $(1) -c -x c /dev/null > -o "$$TMP",y,n) > + $(CC) -Werror $(KBUILD_CPPFLAGS) $(CC_OPTION_CFLAGS) $(1) -c -x c > /dev/null -o "$$TMP",y,n) > > # cc-option-align > # Prefix align with either -falign or -malign > @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ cc-option-align = $(subst -functions=0,,\ > # cc-disable-warning > # Usage: cflags-y += $(call cc-disable-warning,unused-but-set-variable) > cc-disable-warning = $(call try-run,\ > - $(CC) $(KBUILD_CPPFLAGS) $(CC_OPTION_CFLAGS) -W$(strip $(1)) -c -x c > /dev/null -o "$$TMP",-Wno-$(strip $(1))) > + $(CC) -Werror $(KBUILD_CPPFLAGS) $(CC_OPTION_CFLAGS) -W$(strip $(1)) > -c -x c /dev/null -o "$$TMP",-Wno-$(strip $(1))) > > # cc-name > # Expands to either gcc or clang > -- > 2.9.0 > -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
Re: [PATCH] kbuild, LLVMLinux: Add -Werror to cc-option to support clang
On 09/25/14 06:34, Michal Marek wrote: On 2014-09-24 20:50, Behan Webster wrote: Getting clang to error on unused flags wasn't trivial (this change broke a lot of builds apparently). Fortunately we weren't the only ones who wanted it to behave like gcc in this case. I think it's going to be *much* harder to do the same for warnings. The argument given by supporters of the current situation is that if a warning isn't supported, why break the build? *sigh* I guess the reason to accept unknown warnings opentions is compatibility with Makefiles with hardcoded gcc-isms. BTW, GCC at some point started to ignore unknown -Wno-* options, for everyone's good of course. That's why we ended up with the cc-disable-warning function. If -W* options for clang need special care, then it might be a good idea to introduce cc-warning with the conditional -Werror for clang. There are not that many places where we add warnings, so the patch would be still short. That way, the possible silent failure is limited only to warning options with clang, which is not such a big deal. I'll try this approach. Thanks, Behan -- Behan Webster beh...@converseincode.com -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] kbuild, LLVMLinux: Add -Werror to cc-option to support clang
On 2014-09-24 20:50, Behan Webster wrote: > On 09/24/14 05:07, Michal Marek wrote: >> On 2014-09-23 21:28, beh...@converseincode.com wrote: >>> From: Mark Charlebois >>> >>> Clang will warn about unknown warnings but will not return false >> You mean unknown options, right? > 2 kinds of options: flags and warnings. clang used to merely warn about > unused/unsupported flags/warnings. It now returns errors for unknown > flags, but not warnings (unless you specify -Werror). Ah, unknown warning options. Now I understand. > Getting clang to error on unused flags wasn't trivial (this change broke > a lot of builds apparently). Fortunately we weren't the only ones who > wanted it to behave like gcc in this case. I think it's going to be > *much* harder to do the same for warnings. The argument given by > supporters of the current situation is that if a warning isn't > supported, why break the build? *sigh* I guess the reason to accept unknown warnings opentions is compatibility with Makefiles with hardcoded gcc-isms. BTW, GCC at some point started to ignore unknown -Wno-* options, for everyone's good of course. That's why we ended up with the cc-disable-warning function. If -W* options for clang need special care, then it might be a good idea to introduce cc-warning with the conditional -Werror for clang. There are not that many places where we add warnings, so the patch would be still short. That way, the possible silent failure is limited only to warning options with clang, which is not such a big deal. Michal -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] kbuild, LLVMLinux: Add -Werror to cc-option to support clang
On 09/25/14 06:34, Michal Marek wrote: On 2014-09-24 20:50, Behan Webster wrote: Getting clang to error on unused flags wasn't trivial (this change broke a lot of builds apparently). Fortunately we weren't the only ones who wanted it to behave like gcc in this case. I think it's going to be *much* harder to do the same for warnings. The argument given by supporters of the current situation is that if a warning isn't supported, why break the build? *sigh* I guess the reason to accept unknown warnings opentions is compatibility with Makefiles with hardcoded gcc-isms. BTW, GCC at some point started to ignore unknown -Wno-* options, for everyone's good of course. That's why we ended up with the cc-disable-warning function. If -W* options for clang need special care, then it might be a good idea to introduce cc-warning with the conditional -Werror for clang. There are not that many places where we add warnings, so the patch would be still short. That way, the possible silent failure is limited only to warning options with clang, which is not such a big deal. I'll try this approach. Thanks, Behan -- Behan Webster beh...@converseincode.com -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] kbuild, LLVMLinux: Add -Werror to cc-option to support clang
On 2014-09-24 20:50, Behan Webster wrote: On 09/24/14 05:07, Michal Marek wrote: On 2014-09-23 21:28, beh...@converseincode.com wrote: From: Mark Charlebois charl...@gmail.com Clang will warn about unknown warnings but will not return false You mean unknown options, right? 2 kinds of options: flags and warnings. clang used to merely warn about unused/unsupported flags/warnings. It now returns errors for unknown flags, but not warnings (unless you specify -Werror). Ah, unknown warning options. Now I understand. Getting clang to error on unused flags wasn't trivial (this change broke a lot of builds apparently). Fortunately we weren't the only ones who wanted it to behave like gcc in this case. I think it's going to be *much* harder to do the same for warnings. The argument given by supporters of the current situation is that if a warning isn't supported, why break the build? *sigh* I guess the reason to accept unknown warnings opentions is compatibility with Makefiles with hardcoded gcc-isms. BTW, GCC at some point started to ignore unknown -Wno-* options, for everyone's good of course. That's why we ended up with the cc-disable-warning function. If -W* options for clang need special care, then it might be a good idea to introduce cc-warning with the conditional -Werror for clang. There are not that many places where we add warnings, so the patch would be still short. That way, the possible silent failure is limited only to warning options with clang, which is not such a big deal. Michal -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] kbuild, LLVMLinux: Add -Werror to cc-option to support clang
On 09/24/14 05:07, Michal Marek wrote: On 2014-09-23 21:28, beh...@converseincode.com wrote: From: Mark Charlebois Clang will warn about unknown warnings but will not return false You mean unknown options, right? 2 kinds of options: flags and warnings. clang used to merely warn about unused/unsupported flags/warnings. It now returns errors for unknown flags, but not warnings (unless you specify -Werror). The issue is that a lot of existing projects which use clang expect the former behaviour (I agree that makes no sense, but there you go). unless -Werror is set. GCC will return false if an unknown warning is passed. Adding -Werror make both compiler behave the same. Can you please limit it to the clang case? Add an internal variable that either contains -Werror or nothing, depending on the compiler. I can do that. Will fix. What I fear is that if we use -Werror unconditionally and the user (or some automated build system) decides to add some silly option to KCFLAGS, we will get silent failures in the cc-option tests. A valid concern for sure. BTW, is there a chance that this would be fixed in some later clang version? Accepting unknown commandline options is a rather unusual behavior. How are all the ./configure scripts going to cope with it? Again, clang does error out on unknown compiler flags (as opposed to warnings). Getting clang to error on unused flags wasn't trivial (this change broke a lot of builds apparently). Fortunately we weren't the only ones who wanted it to behave like gcc in this case. I think it's going to be *much* harder to do the same for warnings. The argument given by supporters of the current situation is that if a warning isn't supported, why break the build? *sigh* The LLVMLinux project is pushing hard to fix these sorts of things in clang, but some changes are more likely than others. Thanks, Behan -- Behan Webster beh...@converseincode.com -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] kbuild, LLVMLinux: Add -Werror to cc-option to support clang
On 2014-09-23 21:28, beh...@converseincode.com wrote: > From: Mark Charlebois > > Clang will warn about unknown warnings but will not return false You mean unknown options, right? > unless -Werror is set. GCC will return false if an unknown > warning is passed. > > Adding -Werror make both compiler behave the same. Can you please limit it to the clang case? Add an internal variable that either contains -Werror or nothing, depending on the compiler. What I fear is that if we use -Werror unconditionally and the user (or some automated build system) decides to add some silly option to KCFLAGS, we will get silent failures in the cc-option tests. Of course, the same can happen with clang, but there seems to be no way around it. BTW, is there a chance that this would be fixed in some later clang version? Accepting unknown commandline options is a rather unusual behavior. How are all the ./configure scripts going to cope with it? Thanks, Michal -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] kbuild, LLVMLinux: Add -Werror to cc-option to support clang
On 2014-09-23 21:28, beh...@converseincode.com wrote: From: Mark Charlebois charl...@gmail.com Clang will warn about unknown warnings but will not return false You mean unknown options, right? unless -Werror is set. GCC will return false if an unknown warning is passed. Adding -Werror make both compiler behave the same. Can you please limit it to the clang case? Add an internal variable that either contains -Werror or nothing, depending on the compiler. What I fear is that if we use -Werror unconditionally and the user (or some automated build system) decides to add some silly option to KCFLAGS, we will get silent failures in the cc-option tests. Of course, the same can happen with clang, but there seems to be no way around it. BTW, is there a chance that this would be fixed in some later clang version? Accepting unknown commandline options is a rather unusual behavior. How are all the ./configure scripts going to cope with it? Thanks, Michal -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] kbuild, LLVMLinux: Add -Werror to cc-option to support clang
On 09/24/14 05:07, Michal Marek wrote: On 2014-09-23 21:28, beh...@converseincode.com wrote: From: Mark Charlebois charl...@gmail.com Clang will warn about unknown warnings but will not return false You mean unknown options, right? 2 kinds of options: flags and warnings. clang used to merely warn about unused/unsupported flags/warnings. It now returns errors for unknown flags, but not warnings (unless you specify -Werror). The issue is that a lot of existing projects which use clang expect the former behaviour (I agree that makes no sense, but there you go). unless -Werror is set. GCC will return false if an unknown warning is passed. Adding -Werror make both compiler behave the same. Can you please limit it to the clang case? Add an internal variable that either contains -Werror or nothing, depending on the compiler. I can do that. Will fix. What I fear is that if we use -Werror unconditionally and the user (or some automated build system) decides to add some silly option to KCFLAGS, we will get silent failures in the cc-option tests. A valid concern for sure. BTW, is there a chance that this would be fixed in some later clang version? Accepting unknown commandline options is a rather unusual behavior. How are all the ./configure scripts going to cope with it? Again, clang does error out on unknown compiler flags (as opposed to warnings). Getting clang to error on unused flags wasn't trivial (this change broke a lot of builds apparently). Fortunately we weren't the only ones who wanted it to behave like gcc in this case. I think it's going to be *much* harder to do the same for warnings. The argument given by supporters of the current situation is that if a warning isn't supported, why break the build? *sigh* The LLVMLinux project is pushing hard to fix these sorts of things in clang, but some changes are more likely than others. Thanks, Behan -- Behan Webster beh...@converseincode.com -- 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/