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 accidentally generate warnings with gcc.. Thanks, Knut > BR, > Jani. > > > [1] > http://mid.mail-archive.com/cover.5b56d020b8e826a7da33b1823c059acd0c123f8b.151507278 > 2.git-series.knut.om...@oracle.com > > >
