This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PATCH: Add --size-check=[error|warning]
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo at elte dot hu>
- To: sedat dot dilek at gmail dot com
- Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich at novell dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>, binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, LKML <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor dot com>, Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation dot org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation dot org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix dot de>
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:56:46 +0100
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Add --size-check=[error|warning]
- References: <AANLkTinDTyupNgZR-0izCWrpwOnE1wEcubn+M3o=Mgy2@mail.gmail.com>
* Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Nice to see there is an offer for a fix from binutils-side.
Agreed.
> That's why I am on linux-next to squash bugs, not to ignore "warnings"
We x86 arch maintainers definitely do not ignore warnings from the assembler.
Assembler warnings were pretty good historically and seldom produce false positives.
> BTW "warnings", did someone tried gcc-4.6? I used a snapshot from mid February
> (from Debian/experimental): My linux-next build-log and the amount of warnings
> doubled or even more (unfortunately, I have thrown away that logs and binaries).
> Are all of these warnings ignoreable? Which of them are really severe?
Most of those are -Wunused-but-set-variable warnings, right? I'm definitely not
ignoring the ones that affect the code i maintain - so they are very much useful.
But if GCC broke the build unnecessarily, just to over-eagerly warn about something
that worked fine before, that would be extremely counter-productive! In such a
situation the Linux kernel project would likely be fed up enough to build its own
sane compiler/assembler/linker combo and would aim to become entirely independent in
terms of its build environment.
Thanks,
Ingo