> The first one was very big (140KB) and Dan rejected it almost
> for this reason.
>
> The second one was rather small (4KB) and fixed the most
> boring warnings (the
> most obvious and those in .h files which appear in every
> file). It was not
> accepted (without explaination).
>
> I am not sure Dan is interested in warnings.
I forgot to discuss this at the summit. Kevin is correct that I
didn't accept the large 140KB patch because it changed so many
files, including many linux and linux-xen files, at a time when
the tree was not very stable. I do agree that removing warnings
is a good idea as they often hide real bugs. However sometimes
fixing them requires changes that might introduce new bugs.
I had intended to commit the smaller patch some time ago, but
forgot. I committed it after Tristan resubmitted it.
Now that -Wall is on and the tree is fairly stable, it might
be a good time to fix more warnings, especially in the xen
and vmx directories. I would like to hold patches that fix
warnings in the arch/ia64/linux and arch/ia64/linux-xen directories
until we rebase to 2.6.15.
Thanks,
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Tristan Gingold
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 2:37 AM
> To: Xu, Anthony; xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] "-Wall" option doesn't work
>
> Le Jeudi 12 Janvier 2006 02:33, Xu, Anthony a écrit :
> > Hi all,
> > I have been wondering why "-Wall" option doesn't work, and I had
> > suffered much from this. Without -Wall, gcc will not complain about
> > missing prototype etc., for example, assume function A
> return type is
> > unsigned long, according to calling convention, if function
> A is called
> > and there is no prototype, the return type will be int by
> default, which
> > is 4 type. This kind of issue is hard to debug. Below small
> patch make
> > "-Wall" take effect, seems "-w" overwrites "-Wall", then
> you recompile,
> > you will find a lot of warning messages like redefinition, missing
> > prototype etc. I would like to remove all these warning
> message, but all
> > my hands are full.
> I have already sent two patches enabling warnings.
>
> The first one was very big (140KB) and Dan rejected it almost
> for this reason.
>
> The second one was rather small (4KB) and fixed the most
> boring warnings (the
> most obvious and those in .h files which appear in every
> file). It was not
> accepted (without explaination).
>
> I am not sure Dan is interested in warnings.
>
> For sure, fixing warnings is *very* boring. Some are in fact
> bugs: function
> called with less arguments, very dubious casts...
> I really think warnings must be enabled and the earlier is the better.
>
> Tristan.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
> Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
|
Home