On Fri, 02 Feb 2018, Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:44:38PM +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 . 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
>> $ make CHECK=clang C=1
>> Or using Knut's wrapper. Feels like that could increase the use of clang
>> for static analysis of patches.
> Why not just build with clang itself:
> make CC=clang
Same as HOSTCC, mixing different CC's in a single build dir seems like a
bad idea. Sure, everyone can setup a separate build dir for clang, but
IMHO having 'make CHECK=clang C=1' work has least resistance. YMMV.
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel-gfx mailing list