11 Aug
2013
11 Aug
'13
4:40 p.m.
Ahh, I see, the actual fix is not the variable, but
the wrong order of
operands in the assembly, I missed that.
Ah, I thought it was just a side note. You
rarely miss stuff like that ;)
But the additional prototypes are still pointless ;-)
Btw, I'm all for enabling extra warnings, but the following ones seem
not very useful or will probably create a lot of noise:
|-Wunused-but-set-variable (we have this in many places)
|||-Wmaybe-uninitialized (gives too many warnings, since initializing
something by passing it to a function cases this warning)
||||-Wmissing-prototypes (in the kernel no functions are declared
static (wrong IMO, but that's how it is), which will lead to many
warnings)
||||-Wmissing-declarations (see above)
||||-Wcast-align (explicitly casting to a higher alignment can be
useful and there is no other way to avoid this warning)
||||-Wwrite-strings (I fear that we don't always use the const
modifier properly to allow this)
||
-Wuninitialized is already implicitly defined by -Wall
The following additional warnings seem to be reasonable by a quick glance:
|-Wframe-larger-than=|len / |-Wstack-usage=|len (at least for kernel
mode code)||
|-Wbad-function-cast|
|-Wsign-compare (enabled on MSVC by default)
|
|-Wsign-conversion|||
|-Wlogical-op|
|-Waggregate-return|
|-Winvalid-pch|
NP, we need then to decide on the new set of warnings (that brings more
benefits without creating noise/pointless diagnostics), fix the revealed
issues, and after we're done, we proceed permanently with the set, so
that the future check-ins would be subject to it. Fortunately, GCC has
the same concept of disabling warnings for a code block
(http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Diagnostic-Pragmas.html) so we may
use that if needed, in order to keep warnings that have just a few
pointless places.
Sounds like a plan ?
Regards,
Amine.