On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 03:20:12PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:40:50 +0200 > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > Binary printf() functions are using printf() type of format, and compiler > > is not happy about them as is: > > > > lib/vsprintf.c:3130:47: error: function ‘vbin_printf’ might be a candidate > > for ‘gnu_printf’ format attribute [-Werror=suggest-attribute=format] > > lib/vsprintf.c:3298:33: error: function ‘bstr_printf’ might be a candidate > > for ‘gnu_printf’ format attribute [-Werror=suggest-attribute=format] > > BTW, I find it disturbing that the compiler is set to "error" on a warning > that "might be a candidate". What happens if it is not? We have to play > games to quiet it. > > Adding __printf() attributes to stubs seems to be a case of the compiler > causing more problems than its worth :-/ > > I honestly hate this error on warning because it causes real pain when > debugging.
Tell it to Linus :-) since it was him who enabled that default. And since it's there and defconfigs are also part of the kernel I can't easy remove that, and TBH I even won't dare doing that. > There's a lot of times I don't know if the value is long or long > long, and when I get it wrong, my printk() causes the build to fail. It's > especially annoying when both long and long long are the same size! > > Fixing theses stupid errors takes a non trivial amount of time away from > actual debugging. You (actually me) fix them once, currently CI's typically run with W=1, but with WERROR=n. Which means that the new code that is not fixed a priori, will induce the CI red report. > > Fix the compilation errors by adding __printf() attribute. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
