On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 04:37:55PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> 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 [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.
> >
> > 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.

"O=some_output_dir" is your friend.  If you aren't doing that already
for your test builds, you don't know what you are missing :)

thanks,

greg k-h

_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org
https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies

Reply via email to