From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7F22A5E for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:54:21 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id u144so31150407wmu.1 for ; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 11:54:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ypm/uXUPP0J284CGgYBgHfQHkFddkPoKbyFVOo6773k=; b=A+clVb7EAIy3MmGO+XPQRRUjtf3BfvyHk/6XCZESDBjb4D+tKc0KcujTaJjSigqQvi fVVIdI5Ai5dfVAgUgxsV+LstIid0Vo7E9zvb8Mbvd9gNGx7xzzrRiSMmGXwnAcDcJEtP f6Ku3Gf69xUZGgaDi5Fyuy0EtqqtiD7gRJfc/dwW8MkjOpFBKh1AMZBW5meTwcDn2YOo tCTTl3N7BY9fvUZlHAe+60mS6eRbDh8QXwd4ycZkVNfEjDD2yocP6TM/XylDyc8K8ldU ZslJO0rkgRrsI55HxI2QOu4igaRgcIDn3B2E/IMJg6MGN0P6bEu9XGb0C/WDZoTxuStJ MY5w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ypm/uXUPP0J284CGgYBgHfQHkFddkPoKbyFVOo6773k=; b=ipZuT1onqr/WoTCBnyldOT/qyopG5ann5Nu5qRQQ4MNr35C653k+K2wee+WmmbxM9W 4G8fLSW9/0It2oGipExd78JxLAZaRee+XI6gknfG1h6dOa4CgE+wk4HSqx+Pi2ZkAzNr ynABcZfo+YjE175dLdjPHaPcZGdnOZfiyc62PUZ2Y8Mk3q2TjbnfKJxF6TRqwaD6kyiC F2Kh+jeLFY4qhmPdMUAlMGonjUufLQdUUucjb13D/79aUjvwlVRoFXaG9kHdxRsqEwmJ UMhN5prcY7O4EHVLZVf3xfpq0+o7CRLMucnzpGPRxdyPE+m5hYlv1NbJH7Rw4yqRWjI5 +uvg== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdXxx0uVr8jM6IOi6WIMvPAhnxkh2hlCNhG58e8VBDx4qrGBdnTboAJHYCNS6+RnNxh X-Received: by 10.28.14.194 with SMTP id 185mr8157194wmo.89.1478548461144; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 11:54:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d64sm9328949wmh.3.2016.11.07.11.54.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 07 Nov 2016 11:54:20 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Mody, Rasesh" , Rasesh Mody Cc: Stephen Hemminger , dev@dpdk.org, Dept-EngDPDKDev@qlogic.com Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 20:54:19 +0100 Message-ID: <2048360.N3oLfgCnq1@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <4958892.sIoVxbTeGS@xps13> <20161028151203.1a47d895@xeon-e3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/qede: fix gcc compiler option checks X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 19:54:21 -0000 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?