[U-Boot] [PATCH] config.mk: Add -Wundef to CFLAGS

[Simon Glass]

Hi,


On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot at aribaud.net>wrote:

> Hi Masahiro,
>
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:33:19 +0900, Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.m at jp.panasonic.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello, Albert and U-Boot developers.
> >
> >
> > The current status of this patch is Changes Requested.
> >
> > I love -Wundef option to be in, but it looks like
> > difficult for me to post the version 2.
> >
> >
> > The first choice to meet Albert's requirement is
> >
> > > Therefore I ask:
> > >
> > > - that this patch be submitted along fixes to build failures it
> > >   causes, as a proper patch series, by a single individual,
> >
> > Sorry, I cannot do this because:
> >
> > I am not familiar with architectures other than ARM.
> > I understand only a few devices.
> > To fix warnings in a correct way, a close look is often needed,
> > but I cannot cover the whole code in the U-Boot tree.
> >
> > If possible, could anyone take over this task?
> >
> >
> >
> > The other option is
> >
> > >   collected by someone in an officially created git repo or branch;
> >
> > OK, I can do this.
> > But I am not sure this will go well.
> >
> > Even if I create a new repo u-boot-wundef,
> > how many people will pay attention to this repository?
> >
> > Most of users/developers track upstream repos
> > where -Wundef warnings are never displayed.
> >
> > This means no one will have the motivation to fix the warnings.
> >
> >
> >
> > If this patch is desired, in which way should we continue?
> > Comments are welcome.
>
> Sorry not to have followed up earlier.
>
> As I said, I want fixes for trivial cases -- cases where, for instance,
> a macro is used in an #if which has absolutely *no* definition in the
> whole codebase. I do not want fixes for all cases.
>
> OTOH, to find out which failures would be trivial to fix and which ones
> would not, you'd have to go through all of them, which could be
> time-consuming, depending on the number of targets.
>
> I thus suggest we use the typical U-Boot strategy: right at the
> beginning of the merge period, we apply the -Wundef patch onto all
> repos (or on the main repo and then pulled into others) and then wait
> for screams.
>
> Screams should come fst from custodians, who routinely build for all
> targets of their assigned architecture. They will see which boards fail
> due to undefined macros and will report those failures on the list,
> copying the board maintainers (or subsystem owners if the issue is not
> board-specific.
>
> All boards not fixed before merge window closure release will be
> declared dying; all those not fixed before 2014.01 will be declared
> dead, and orphaned and put in the scrapyard (and then, people who want
> them back can always resurrect *and fix* them).
>
> Subsystems... will have to be fixed some way or other.
>
> Of course, anyone with an interest can spontaneously provide fixes for
> boards or subsystems affected.
>
> Adding Tom and Wolfgang for advice, but of course comments are welcome
> from everyone.
>

Breaking a board by introducing a warning is bad, I don't think we can do
that.

But fixing common.h would be easy enough at least.

Can you run buildman on all boards and see how many files generate warnings?

Regards,
Simon


>
> > Best Regards,
> > Masahiro Yamada
>
> Amicalement,
> --
> Albert.
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
>