Hi,
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net>wrote: > Hi Masahiro, > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:33:19 +0900, Masahiro Yamada > <yamad...@jp.panasonic.com> wrote: > > > Hello, Albert and U-Boot developers. > > > > > > The current status of this patch is Changes Requested. > > > > I love -Wundef option to be in, but it looks like > > difficult for me to post the version 2. > > > > > > The first choice to meet Albert's requirement is > > > > > Therefore I ask: > > > > > > - that this patch be submitted along fixes to build failures it > > > causes, as a proper patch series, by a single individual, > > > > Sorry, I cannot do this because: > > > > I am not familiar with architectures other than ARM. > > I understand only a few devices. > > To fix warnings in a correct way, a close look is often needed, > > but I cannot cover the whole code in the U-Boot tree. > > > > If possible, could anyone take over this task? > > > > > > > > The other option is > > > > > collected by someone in an officially created git repo or branch; > > > > OK, I can do this. > > But I am not sure this will go well. > > > > Even if I create a new repo u-boot-wundef, > > how many people will pay attention to this repository? > > > > Most of users/developers track upstream repos > > where -Wundef warnings are never displayed. > > > > This means no one will have the motivation to fix the warnings. > > > > > > > > If this patch is desired, in which way should we continue? > > Comments are welcome. > > Sorry not to have followed up earlier. > > As I said, I want fixes for trivial cases -- cases where, for instance, > a macro is used in an #if which has absolutely *no* definition in the > whole codebase. I do not want fixes for all cases. > > OTOH, to find out which failures would be trivial to fix and which ones > would not, you'd have to go through all of them, which could be > time-consuming, depending on the number of targets. > > I thus suggest we use the typical U-Boot strategy: right at the > beginning of the merge period, we apply the -Wundef patch onto all > repos (or on the main repo and then pulled into others) and then wait > for screams. > > Screams should come fst from custodians, who routinely build for all > targets of their assigned architecture. They will see which boards fail > due to undefined macros and will report those failures on the list, > copying the board maintainers (or subsystem owners if the issue is not > board-specific. > > All boards not fixed before merge window closure release will be > declared dying; all those not fixed before 2014.01 will be declared > dead, and orphaned and put in the scrapyard (and then, people who want > them back can always resurrect *and fix* them). > > Subsystems... will have to be fixed some way or other. > > Of course, anyone with an interest can spontaneously provide fixes for > boards or subsystems affected. > > Adding Tom and Wolfgang for advice, but of course comments are welcome > from everyone. > Breaking a board by introducing a warning is bad, I don't think we can do that. But fixing common.h would be easy enough at least. Can you run buildman on all boards and see how many files generate warnings? Regards, Simon > > > Best Regards, > > Masahiro Yamada > > Amicalement, > -- > Albert. > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > U-Boot@lists.denx.de > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot >
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
