From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29246 invoked by alias); 14 Mar 2011 12:57:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 29237 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Mar 2011 12:57:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu (HELO mx2.mail.elte.hu) (157.181.151.9) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:57:03 +0000 Received: from elvis.elte.hu ([157.181.1.14]) by mx2.mail.elte.hu with esmtp (Exim) id 1Pz7KL-0006Cd-K5 from ; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:56:56 +0100 Received: by elvis.elte.hu (Postfix, from userid 1004) id 8C7D43E236A; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:56:43 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:57:00 -0000 From: Ingo Molnar To: sedat.dilek@gmail.com Cc: Jan Beulich , "H.J. Lu" , Alan Modra , binutils , LKML , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: PATCH: Add --size-check=[error|warning] Message-ID: <20110314125646.GA28851@elte.hu> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) Received-SPF: neutral (mx2.mail.elte.hu: 157.181.1.14 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of elte.hu) client-ip=157.181.1.14; envelope-from=mingo@elte.hu; helo=elvis.elte.hu; X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00266.txt.bz2 * Sedat Dilek wrote: > Nice to see there is an offer for a fix from binutils-side. Agreed. > That's why I am on linux-next to squash bugs, not to ignore "warnings" We x86 arch maintainers definitely do not ignore warnings from the assembler. Assembler warnings were pretty good historically and seldom produce false positives. > BTW "warnings", did someone tried gcc-4.6? I used a snapshot from mid February > (from Debian/experimental): My linux-next build-log and the amount of warnings > doubled or even more (unfortunately, I have thrown away that logs and binaries). > Are all of these warnings ignoreable? Which of them are really severe? Most of those are -Wunused-but-set-variable warnings, right? I'm definitely not ignoring the ones that affect the code i maintain - so they are very much useful. But if GCC broke the build unnecessarily, just to over-eagerly warn about something that worked fine before, that would be extremely counter-productive! In such a situation the Linux kernel project would likely be fed up enough to build its own sane compiler/assembler/linker combo and would aim to become entirely independent in terms of its build environment. Thanks, Ingo