On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 12:44 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> +Knut, Fengguang
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2018, Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >     - If clang now builds the kernel "cleanly", yes, I want to take
> >       warning fixes in the stable tree.  And even better yet, if you
> >       keep working to ensure the tree is "clean", that would be
> >       wonderful.
> So we can run sparse using 'make C=1' and friends, or other static
> analysis tools using 'make CHECK=foo C=1', as long as the passed command
> line params work. There was work by Knut to extend this make checker
> stuff [1]. Since mixing different HOSTCC's in a single workdir seems
> like a bad idea, I wonder how hard it would be to make clang work like
> this:
> $ make CHECK=clang C=1
> Or using Knut's wrapper. Feels like that could increase the use of clang
> for static analysis of patches.

Yes, definitely a natural addition to the set of tools supported by
runchecks to also support using alternate compiler(s) as "checkers" - I guess
the same would apply for people compiling with clang - that they don't 
generate warnings with gcc..


> BR,
> Jani.
> [1] 
> http://mid.mail-archive.com/cover.5b56d020b8e826a7da33b1823c059acd0c123f8b.151507278
> 2.git-series.knut.om...@oracle.com
dri-devel mailing list

Reply via email to