Laszlo: I understand the request to BaseTools is that AutoGen code can pass GCC or MSFT compiler without any warning. If so, EDKII module can enable non default warnings in itself. I will evaluate BaseTools. And, you raise one issue that the different ARCHs have the different warning setting. I suggest to keep them consistent to avoid the different build results. How about adding -Wno-unused-but-set-variable option to AARCH64 DEBUG.
Besides, Shumin is a young man. :) Thanks Liming From: edk2-devel [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Leif Lindholm Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 4:50 PM To: Laszlo Ersek <[email protected]> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Andrew Fish <[email protected]>; Gao, Liming <[email protected]>; Kinney, Michael D <[email protected]>; Qiu, Shumin <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] MdePkg: add UNUSED notation to Base.h On 17 March 2016 at 19:51, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> I must confess to no small amount of surprise that optionally adding >> the ability to tag an unused argument as unused is controversial. > > I'm also surprised, but by a different thing. :) > (2) Beyond removing "-Wno-unused-but-set-variable", I then added > "-Wunused-parameter -Wunused-but-set-parameter". > > Oh boy. :) First, a large number of "AutoGen.c" files (maybe all of > them?) seem to hit it. I simply filtered those out. Yeah, so far I have: diff --git a/BaseTools/Source/Python/AutoGen/GenC.py b/BaseTools/Source/Python/AutoGen/GenC.py index 842d8bd..418bc47 100644 --- a/BaseTools/Source/Python/AutoGen/GenC.py +++ b/BaseTools/Source/Python/AutoGen/GenC.py @@ -59,6 +59,9 @@ gAutoGenHeaderString = TemplateString("""\ ${FileName} Abstract: Auto-generated ${FileName} for building module or library. **/ +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wunused-macros" +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wmissing-variable-declarations" +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wunused-parameter" """) gAutoGenHPrologueString = TemplateString(""" (No, I'm _not_ suggesting merging that. Hilariously, that snippet causes build failures with GCC due to unknown pragmas...) > Second, the remaining set of warnings is also huge: almost 4000 > instances. The list of locations is too large to attach or paste (and I > don't think the list will allow compressed attachments), so I'm > uploading it here: > . > > If I understand correctly, if we wanted to enable "-Wunused-parameter > -Wunused-but-set-parameter" even just occasionally, these ~4000 > instances would have to be audited, and each should be either fixed > (i.e., internal functions should drop the parameters) or marked UNUSED > (i.e., library instances and PPI/protocol implementations should > annotate their definitions of public functions). > > Thus, this is what surprises me. It looks daunting. Oh indeed. I just wanted to tools to enable it - and it sounds like that bit is not the controversial one. / Leif _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
