On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 9:50 AM Tom Rix wrote:
>
> clang with W=1 reports
> drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_cmd.c:424:6: error: variable
> 'count' set but not used [-Werror,-Wunused-but-set-variable]
> int count = 0;
> ^
> This variable is not used so remove it.
Thanks for the patch!
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 10:24 AM Tom Rix wrote:
>
> clang with W=1 reports
> drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_ioctl.c:149:14: error: variable
> 'num_relocs' set but not used [-Werror,-Wunused-but-set-variable]
> int i, ret, num_relocs;
> ^
> This variable is not used so remove
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 11:20 PM Alvaro Karsz
wrote:
>
> The buffer size and the size passed to snprintf don't match, causing
> clang warnings.
>
> This patch increases a little bit the size of the buffer, and uses
> sizeof() to get the buffer size.
>
> This patch should be applied on top of the f
On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 11:02 PM Bill Wendling wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2022 at 12:18 AM Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 09:37:50PM +, Bill Wendling wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > callq *pv_ops+536(%rip)
> >
> > Do you know which pv_ops function is this? I can't figure ou
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 8:24 AM Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> Applying a real patch set and then getting a few follow ups the next day
> for trivial coding things like fallthrough missing or static missing,
> just because I didn't have the full range of compilers to check with
> before applying makes
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 1:33 PM Finn Thain wrote:
>
> Or do you think that a codebase can somehow satisfy multiple checkers and
> their divergent interpretations of the language spec?
Have we found any cases yet that are divergent? I don't think so. It
sounds to me like GCC's cases it warns for
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:05 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 13:32 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > We already enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough globally, so that's not the
> > discussion. The issue is that Clang is (correctly) even more strict
> > than GCC for this, so these are the r
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 8:17 AM Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:51:42AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > If none of the 140 patches here fix a real bug, and there is no change
> > to machine code then it sounds to me like a W=2 kind of a warning.
>
> FWIW, this series has found at
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 10:43 PM Greg KH wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 09:09:28AM -0700, t...@redhat.com wrote:
> > From: Tom Rix
> >
> > This is a upcoming change to clean up a new warning treewide.
> > I am wondering if the change could be one mega patch (see below) or
> > normal patch per
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 9:52 AM Will Deacon wrote:
>
> Now that 'smp_read_barrier_depends()' has gone the way of the Norwegian
> Blue, drop the inclusion of in 'asm-generic/rwonce.h'.
>
> This requires fixups to some architecture vdso headers which were
> previously relying on 'asm/barrier.h' com
I'm trying to put together a Micro Conference for Linux Plumbers
conference focused on "make LLVM slightly less shitty." Do you all
plan on attending the conference? Would it be worthwhile to hold a
session focused on discussing this (LTO and memory models) be
worthwhile?
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 12:21 PM 'Sami Tolvanen' via Clang Built Linux
wrote:
>
> LLVM's assembler doesn't accept the short form inl (%%dx) instruction,
> but instead insists on the output register to be explicitly specified:
>
> :1:7: error: invalid operand for instruction
> inl (%dx)
12 matches
Mail list logo
