On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:20:50AM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Josh Poimboeuf
> > Sent: 05 April 2019 18:23
> > On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 05:17:15PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > > > Hm, I don't see that in cmd_objtool, or any commits from you in
> > > > scripts/Makefile.build.
> > >
> > > No
From: Josh Poimboeuf
> Sent: 05 April 2019 18:23
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 05:17:15PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > > Hm, I don't see that in cmd_objtool, or any commits from you in
> > > scripts/Makefile.build.
> >
> > Not sure I remember actually committing them.
> > Maybe 'git diff' isn't doing
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 05:17:15PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > Hm, I don't see that in cmd_objtool, or any commits from you in
> > scripts/Makefile.build.
>
> Not sure I remember actually committing them.
> Maybe 'git diff' isn't doing what I expect :-)
> I hate git.
Do you see it here?
ht
> Hm, I don't see that in cmd_objtool, or any commits from you in
> scripts/Makefile.build.
Not sure I remember actually committing them.
Maybe 'git diff' isn't doing what I expect :-)
I hate git.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT,
UK
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 04:35:50PM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Josh Poimboeuf
> > Sent: 05 April 2019 17:21
> ..
> > > FWIW I had to update libelf.so from version 0.153 to 0.165 in
> > > order for the amd64 orc unwinder code in objtool to not generate
> > > corrupt output files.
> > > That i
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 06:26:27PM +0200, 'Luis Ressel' wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 04:16:14PM +, David Laight wrote:
>
> > In which case you should be looking at a way of removing -Wundef
> > not removing -Werror.
>
> No, my whole point is that this blacklisting approach doesn't work
>
From: Josh Poimboeuf
> Sent: 05 April 2019 17:21
..
> > FWIW I had to update libelf.so from version 0.153 to 0.165 in
> > order for the amd64 orc unwinder code in objtool to not generate
> > corrupt output files.
> > That is an Ubuntu 13.04 system - nothing like 10 years old.
>
> Ah. It would be
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 11:15:41AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> I consider that a good thing, because I *want* the build to be broken
> when somebody uses a bad version of libelf. A patch to produce a more
> useful error message (e.g., "bad version of libelf") would be welcome of
> course.
Do t
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 04:16:14PM +, David Laight wrote:
> In which case you should be looking at a way of removing -Wundef
> not removing -Werror.
No, my whole point is that this blacklisting approach doesn't work
outside a controlled dev environment, because different
compilers/compiler ve
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 04:16:14PM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Luis Ressel
> > Sent: 05 April 2019 17:06
> > On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 09:39:26AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> > > Hm, I would actually argue the reverse. Warnings are generally bad and
> > > -Werror is useful for ensuring
From: Luis Ressel
> Sent: 05 April 2019 17:06
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 09:39:26AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > Hm, I would actually argue the reverse. Warnings are generally bad and
> > -Werror is useful for ensuring that we don't have any. For warnings
> > that don't provide value, we ju
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 06:05:50PM +0200, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 09:39:26AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > Hm, I would actually argue the reverse. Warnings are generally bad and
> > -Werror is useful for ensuring that we don't have any. For warnings
> > that don't provi
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 09:39:26AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> Hm, I would actually argue the reverse. Warnings are generally bad and
> -Werror is useful for ensuring that we don't have any. For warnings
> that don't provide value, we just disable those individual warnings.
Sure, during deve
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 04:24:43PM +0200, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 07:39:09AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > What version of libelf are you using? AFAIK, the non-elfutils version
> > of libelf is buggy and has been unmaintained for 10 years.
>
> I'm using libelf 0.8.13, whic
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 07:39:09AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> What version of libelf are you using? AFAIK, the non-elfutils version
> of libelf is buggy and has been unmaintained for 10 years.
I'm using libelf 0.8.13, which is indeed 10y old, abandoned and rather
suboptimal (elfutils OTOH is
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 01:01:50PM +0200, Luis Ressel wrote:
> -Werror can be handy for development, but enabling it for production
> builds is a bad idea -- other compilers might produce unexpected
> warnings, or #included library headers might trigger warnings.
>
> In my case, libelf's (not elfu
-Werror can be handy for development, but enabling it for production
builds is a bad idea -- other compilers might produce unexpected
warnings, or #included library headers might trigger warnings.
In my case, libelf's (not elfutil's!) headers trigger several -Wundef
warnings. This wasn't a problem
17 matches
Mail list logo
