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 . 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.
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..