Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/qede: fix gcc compiler option checks

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2016-10-28 22:49, Mody, Rasesh:
> > From: Stephen Hemminger
> > >  ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_TOOLCHAIN_GCC),y)
> > > -ifeq ($(shell gcc -Wno-unused-but-set-variable -Werror -E - < /dev/null > /dev/null 2>&1; echo $$?),0)
> > > +ifeq ($(shell test $(GCC_VERSION) -ge 44 && echo 1), 1)
> > >  CFLAGS_BASE_DRIVER += -Wno-unused-but-set-variable
> > >  endif
> > >  CFLAGS_BASE_DRIVER += -Wno-missing-declarations
> > > -ifeq ($(shell gcc -Wno-maybe-uninitialized -Werror -E - < /dev/null > /dev/null 2>&1; echo $$?),0)
> > > +ifeq ($(shell test $(GCC_VERSION) -ge 46 && echo 1), 1)
> > >  CFLAGS_BASE_DRIVER += -Wno-maybe-uninitialized
> > >  endif
> > 
> > Does this mean that less compiler checking is done or more?
> 
> With higher version of compilers more compiler checking is done, for older compilers less checking is done. As some of the older compiles do not have newly added checking capabilities. Testing with latest compilers ensures we do lot more checking.

It is basically less checking.
It disables some checks if the compiler support them because it would
make compilation failing.

Why would it fail? Because as other base drivers, the code is messy.

> > It seems lots of drivers make the excuse:
> >  "the base driver comes from another group and is known buggy but can't be
> >  fixed"
> > That doesn't reflect well on the quality of the DPDK.

You're right Stephen. It is an excuse which has been accepted in DPDK.
Should we be stricter?