Joerg Sonnenberger <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 06:30:29PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Joerg Sonnenberger <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 10:12:32PM +0100, Frederic Cambus wrote:
> > > > I'm building myself a small tool [1] to display .gnu.warning.* sections
> > > > names in ELF objects along with their content, and will check which
> > > > other projects use those sections. So far, aside from us, FreeBSD,
> > > > NetBSD, and DragonFly all use these sections in their libc, and glibc
> > > > does as well.
> > >
> > > In the past, the linker section was the only option to get usage
> > > warnings. It has the major downside that the implementation is somewhat
> > > buggy as GNU ld triggers the warning in a number of cases that do not
> > > include usage and there is no way to flag individual uses as safe.
> > > This disadvantage doesn't exist with the warning attribute. The downside
> > > of the attribute is that it requires very recent clang or modernish GCC
> > > to be supported. If it is supported, it provides a significant better
> > > user experience.
> >
> > And I believe that is false.
> >
> > Compile-time warnings scroll off the screen, and result in noone giving a
> > damn.
> >
> > When the warnings are at the very end, as they are with ld, at least
> > some people pay attention.
> >
> > I've been watching this for decades, and I can say with confidence that
> > everyone has learned to tune-out compile time warnings to a very high
> > degree.
>
> I don't completely disagree about the compiler warnings, but they at
> least tell you where the problem is in a reasonable precise manner. We
> also now have reasonable good ways to selectively turn them into
> compiler errors. The ld warnings are worse in pretty much every way:
> - they are non-fatal by default as well
> - they are all or nothing - you can't whitelist individual warnings
> - they give very poor diagnostics for finding where the problem is
> - they have known false positives e.g. when using shared linking
I call bullshit.
I've watched you for years. You talk a lot and fix very little source
code. And quite often, it feels like you advocate against things which
help. There's a well-known phrase
Why not both?
Compile time errors *already exist*. For you to come here to our lists
and advocate against a mechanism we have found incredibly effective, is
a bullshit against-improvement process. Please stop your shit.
