From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68F22ADF9 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:20:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1NEKt5Q011531 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:20:56 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn1-7-140.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.7.140]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1NEKr3h019452; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:20:54 -0500 Message-ID: <54EB3745.5020205@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:20:53 +0200 From: Panu Matilainen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Neil Horman References: <09445d1715453b2eff4399da998717b967b829b3.1423739602.git.pmatilai@redhat.com> <20150212063820.436b2221@uryu.home.lan> <54DCBEB4.30005@redhat.com> <20150220175521.334a63c9@urahara> <20150221193339.GA17802@neilslaptop.think-freely.org> <54EAE28B.3070807@redhat.com> <20150223135508.GB19230@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> In-Reply-To: <20150223135508.GB19230@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.23 Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Make -Werror optional 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, 23 Feb 2015 14:20:57 -0000 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 wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 02/12/2015 04:38 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:13:22 +0200 >>>>>> Panu Matilainen 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 -