diff mbox series

drm/i915: drop unneeded -Wall addition

Message ID 20190515043753.9853-1-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series drm/i915: drop unneeded -Wall addition | expand

Commit Message

Masahiro Yamada May 15, 2019, 4:37 a.m. UTC
The top level Makefile adds -Wall globally:

  KBUILD_CFLAGS   := -Wall -Wundef -Werror=strict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs \

I see two "-Wall" added for compiling under drivers/gpu/drm/i915/.

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
---

BTW, I have a question in the comment:

 "Note the danger in using -Wall -Wextra is that when CI updates gcc we
  will most likely get a sudden build breakage... Hopefully we will fix
  new warnings before CI updates!"

Enabling whatever warning options does not cause build breakage.
-Werror does.

So, I think the correct statement is:

 "Note the danger in using -Werror is that when CI updates gcc we ...
                           ^^^^^^^


 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Masahiro Yamada May 15, 2019, 10:45 a.m. UTC | #1
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:25 PM Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Quoting Masahiro Yamada (2019-05-15 05:37:53)
> > The top level Makefile adds -Wall globally:
> >
> >   KBUILD_CFLAGS   := -Wall -Wundef -Werror=strict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs \
> >
> > I see two "-Wall" added for compiling under drivers/gpu/drm/i915/.
>
> Does it matter? Is the statement in i915/Makefile not more complete for
> saying "-Wall -Wextra -Werror"?


Not fatal, but better to fix.

Why not fix the comment if you mind
"-Wall" in the comment?

It will be easy to rephrase the comments
without explicitly mentioning -Wall or -Wextra.


I reworded it more concisely:

# We aggressively eliminate warnings,
# so here are more warning options than default.

That's it.


The CI is your local matter.
Distracting comments should not be added in the upstream code
in the first place.


> > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
> > ---
> >
> > BTW, I have a question in the comment:
> >
> >  "Note the danger in using -Wall -Wextra is that when CI updates gcc we
> >   will most likely get a sudden build breakage... Hopefully we will fix
> >   new warnings before CI updates!"
> >
> > Enabling whatever warning options does not cause build breakage.
> > -Werror does.
> >
> > So, I think the correct statement is:
> >
> >  "Note the danger in using -Werror is that when CI updates gcc we ...
>
> No.


Heh, I thought the answer was Yes,
since I saw the following in this Makefile.

# Add a set of useful warning flags and enable -Werror for CI to prevent




> CI enforces -Werror and that is constant, so the uncontrolled
> variable, the danger, lies in using the unreliable heuristics gcc may
> arbitrary enable between versions. That the set of warnings causing an
> error may be different between CI and the developer.
> -Chris
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile
index fbcb0904f4a8..4a4f60c7edfc 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ 
 # Note the danger in using -Wall -Wextra is that when CI updates gcc we
 # will most likely get a sudden build breakage... Hopefully we will fix
 # new warnings before CI updates!
-subdir-ccflags-y := -Wall -Wextra
+subdir-ccflags-y := -Wextra
 subdir-ccflags-y += $(call cc-disable-warning, unused-parameter)
 subdir-ccflags-y += $(call cc-disable-warning, type-limits)
 subdir-ccflags-y += $(call cc-disable-warning, missing-field-initializers)