Re: [edk2] proposal to handle invalid compiler warnings

2014-03-25 Thread Laszlo Ersek
On 03/25/14 00:12, Bill Paul wrote: > Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Laszlo Ersek had to > walk into mine at 06:32:57 on Monday 24 March 2014 and say: > >> On 03/23/14 03:19, Scott Duplichan wrote: >>> Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.com] wrote: >>> >>> ]Hence for gcc

Re: [edk2] proposal to handle invalid compiler warnings

2014-03-24 Thread Bill Paul
Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Laszlo Ersek had to walk into mine at 06:32:57 on Monday 24 March 2014 and say: > On 03/23/14 03:19, Scott Duplichan wrote: > > Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.com] wrote: > > > > ]Hence for gcc-4.4 to gcc-4.6, we should degrade -Wunini

Re: [edk2] proposal to handle invalid compiler warnings

2014-03-24 Thread Laszlo Ersek
On 03/23/14 03:19, Scott Duplichan wrote: > Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.com] wrote: > ]Hence for gcc-4.4 to gcc-4.6, we should degrade -Wuninitialized from > ]error to warning. > > Has anyone proposed reducing the number of gcc versions supported? > Would dropping support for 4.4, 4,5 and

Re: [edk2] proposal to handle invalid compiler warnings

2014-03-24 Thread Sergey Isakov
On 23.03.2014, at 6:19, Scott Duplichan wrote: > Laszlo Ersek [mailto:ler...@redhat.com] wrote: > > ]Hi, > ] > ]I'm interested in feedback for the following BuildTools-related idea. > ] > ]Over the past months working with OVMF I have distilled the following > ]conviction about invalid compiler

Re: [edk2] proposal to handle invalid compiler warnings

2014-03-22 Thread Matt Fleming
On Fri, 21 Mar, at 03:13:58PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > I did think of a build farm, but it seemed a steeper suggestion than the > -Wno-error=... flags. Yeah, I think for this specific case your suggestion makes sense. I was just wondering whether anyone had look into it in the past. > Building

Re: [edk2] proposal to handle invalid compiler warnings

2014-03-21 Thread Laszlo Ersek
On 03/21/14 13:15, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar, at 11:46:53AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> >> Do you build each one of your patches with sixteen (compiler, target >> arch) pairs during live development? Increasing the latency of your >> build cycle from like 1 minute to a quarter of an hour? An

Re: [edk2] proposal to handle invalid compiler warnings

2014-03-21 Thread Matt Fleming
On Fri, 21 Mar, at 11:46:53AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > Do you build each one of your patches with sixteen (compiler, target > arch) pairs during live development? Increasing the latency of your > build cycle from like 1 minute to a quarter of an hour? And that's > supposing that you can fire off e

Re: [edk2] proposal to handle invalid compiler warnings

2014-03-21 Thread Laszlo Ersek
On 03/21/14 11:25, Sergey Isakov wrote: > Hi, > Why not just correct the sources to eliminate these mistakes? > Sergey Very good question, thank you. First, because the sources are already correct, and the things to change are *not* mistakes. They are valid constructs that the compilers fail to r

Re: [edk2] proposal to handle invalid compiler warnings

2014-03-21 Thread Sergey Isakov
Hi, Why not just correct the sources to eliminate these mistakes? Sergey On 21.03.2014, at 13:53, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > Hi, > > I'm interested in feedback for the following BuildTools-related idea. > > Over the past months working with OVMF I have distilled the following > conviction about inva

[edk2] proposal to handle invalid compiler warnings

2014-03-21 Thread Laszlo Ersek
Hi, I'm interested in feedback for the following BuildTools-related idea. Over the past months working with OVMF I have distilled the following conviction about invalid compiler warnings (false positives emitted for intended and valid C constructs): (1) gcc likes to warn about uninitialized loca