From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE2247CB3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 17:28:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48])
 by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Sep 2017 08:28:05 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,378,1500966000"; d="scan'208";a="310361053"
Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.24])
 by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2017 08:28:03 -0700
Received: by  (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:28:03 +0100
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:28:03 +0100
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Message-ID: <20170911152802.GA39664@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <20170911151333.5727-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170911151333.5727-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Organization: Intel Research and =?iso-8859-1?Q?De=ACvel?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?opment?= Ireland Ltd.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 00/10] fix compilation with -Og
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 15:28:07 -0000

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 05:13:23PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> In developer mode (RTE_DEVEL_BUILD=y) where -Werror is passed in the
> CFLAGS, the compilation fails with gcc-6.3.0 and EXTRA_CFLAGS=-Og. Some
> errors are real bugs (but not critical), while some are false positives
> (gcc bugs?).
> 
> The solution often consists in initializing a local variable to
> ensure the compiler won't complain.
> 
> The patchset contains all the fixes needed to properly compile with -Og.
> Feedback is welcome to decide if:
> 1/ we include all of them, even if some are workarounds for
>    gcc bugs
> 2/ we only include the real fixes, without fixing the compilation with
>    -Og.
> 
Unless it's in a performance critical code path, where additional tests
may be needed to ensure it's not affecting the performance via extra
writes to the variable, I'd say apply them all! No point in leaving
known errors/warnings around when the fixes are generally trivial.

/Bruce