From: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Make -Werror optional
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:20:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54EB3745.5020205@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150223135508.GB19230@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
On 02/23/2015 03:55 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:19:23AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On 02/21/2015 09:33 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 05:55:21PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:54:44 +0200
>>>> Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/12/2015 04:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:13:22 +0200
>>>>>> Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This adds new CONFIG_RTE_ERROR_ON_WARNING config option to enable
>>>>>>> fail-on-warning compile behavior, defaulting to off.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Failing build on warnings is a useful developer tool but its bad
>>>>>>> for release tarballs which can and do get built with newer
>>>>>>> compilers than what was used/available during development. Compilers
>>>>>>> routinely add new warnings so code which built silently with cc X
>>>>>>> might no longer do so with X+1. This doesn't make the existing code
>>>>>>> any more buggier and failing the build in this case does not help
>>>>>>> not help improve code quality of an already released version either.
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully distro's like RHEL will build with -Werror enabled
>>>> and not allow build to go through with errors.
>>>>
>>> Thats usually what we do, yes.
>>
>> Um, nope. All Fedora and RHEL builds are done using a common base set of
>> flags set centrally from rpm configuration, and that includes among other
>> things -Wall but not -Werror, although since F21 -Werror=format-security is
>> included since that there are relatively few false positives for that.
>>
>> The thing is, compiler warnings from compilers are just that: warnings, and
>> often including hefty dose of false positives. A good package maintainer
>> will look at the build logs of his/her packages, investigate warnings and
>> send patches upstream to address them in oncoming versions where actually
>> relevant, but generally a package maintainer in a distro is not responsible
>> for achieving zero-warning build, nor should they.
>>
> Um, I don't know what you've been doing, but most of my packages typically have
> zero warnings. Its true package maintainers have the option to disable
> warnings, and many do for pragmatic reasons as you note, but when its feasible,
> theres no reason not to make sure warning doesn't get raised when you expect
> there to be none.
The question wasn't about you or me or any other individual maintainer
or package, it was whether distros build with -Werror, and the answer to
that is generally no.
Individual maintainers are free to do so of course, but for example with
the ubiquitous autoconf-based packages you cant just stick -Werror into
CFLAGS because it breaks a whole pile of the autoconf tests.
But this is getting wildly off-topic for dpdk dev, I'll shut up now :)
- Panu -
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-23 14:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-12 11:13 Panu Matilainen
2015-02-12 11:25 ` Bruce Richardson
2015-02-12 12:02 ` Panu Matilainen
2015-02-12 12:08 ` Bruce Richardson
2015-02-12 13:58 ` Panu Matilainen
2015-02-12 14:02 ` Bruce Richardson
2015-02-12 14:05 ` Thomas Monjalon
2015-02-12 15:18 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mk: Only default to -Werror when building from git checkout Panu Matilainen
2015-02-20 12:15 ` Thomas Monjalon
2015-02-21 2:15 ` Stephen Hemminger
2015-02-21 10:48 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-03-02 14:22 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] mk: stop on warning only in developer build Thomas Monjalon
2016-03-02 22:04 ` Bruce Richardson
2016-03-03 10:36 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-03-03 10:53 ` Panu Matilainen
2015-02-12 14:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Make -Werror optional Stephen Hemminger
2015-02-12 14:54 ` Panu Matilainen
2015-02-21 1:55 ` Stephen Hemminger
2015-02-21 19:33 ` Neil Horman
2015-02-23 8:19 ` Panu Matilainen
2015-02-23 13:55 ` Neil Horman
2015-02-23 14:20 ` Panu Matilainen [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54EB3745.5020205@redhat.com \
--to=pmatilai@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).