lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -v4] kbuild: Add extra gcc checks
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 09:20:50PM +0800, Américo Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 12:35:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >On Monday 28 February 2011, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >> My intention was not to have multiple levels of warnings because then
> >> you have to go and enable the different levels and have to remember
> >> which level you used last, etc, etc.
> >
> >I wasn't suggesting more than two, so the two would have very distinct
> >definitions:
> >
> >W=1: Warnings that we would like to fix all over the tree, patches to
> > remove these are always welcome and you can build the entire kernel
> > with it. Once they are all fixed, we can make the warnings the default.
> >
> >W=2: Warnings that we know we don't always want to fix, meant for what
> > you describe here -- you build a single file and decide what to
> > do based on common sense.
> >
>
> Right, this makes sense. Borislav, could you implement this?

Yeah, I could try to come up with a sensible choice for mutual-exclusive
sets of -W.. options. Any preferences?

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-01 15:59    [W:0.055 / U:1.264 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site