On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 1:25 PM Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:54:16PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:14 PM Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 11:46:55AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 3:39 AM Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > lib/event-libs/libuv/libuv.c: In function 'elops_destroy_context1_uv': > > > > > lib/event-libs/libuv/libuv.c:519:7: error: 'm' may be used > > > > > uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized] > > > > > if (m) > > > > > ^ > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> > > > > > --- > > > > > .../recipes-connectivity/libwebsockets/libwebsockets_3.1.0.bb | 2 > > > > > ++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > > a/meta-oe/recipes-connectivity/libwebsockets/libwebsockets_3.1.0.bb > > > > > b/meta-oe/recipes-connectivity/libwebsockets/libwebsockets_3.1.0.bb > > > > > index 50620d99e..fcabeb902 100644 > > > > > --- > > > > > a/meta-oe/recipes-connectivity/libwebsockets/libwebsockets_3.1.0.bb > > > > > +++ > > > > > b/meta-oe/recipes-connectivity/libwebsockets/libwebsockets_3.1.0.bb > > > > > @@ -28,3 +28,5 @@ EXTRA_OECMAKE += " \ > > > > > PACKAGES =+ "${PN}-testapps" > > > > > > > > > > FILES_${PN}-testapps += "${datadir}/libwebsockets-test-server/*" > > > > > + > > > > > +CFLAGS_append = " -Wno-error" > > > > > > > > is it possible to fix the underlying problem? since Os is not default > > > > it definitely could be a bug in upstream but > > > > by disabling warnings for all kind of builds we are painting with > > > > broad brush > > > > > > The underlying problem is that some gcc warnings are not reliable with > > > -Os, > > > there are bugs open in the gcc bugzilla for that. > > > > > I am aware of that for maybe-* warnings heuristics may go wrong, but > > then its better to just disable that > > one warning from being treated as error if thats possible to add > > easily something like > > -Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized could do it. > > And then the package fails to build due to a different warning after the > next gcc upgrade. >
which is fine, since we can report it upstream to either gcc if its gcc's fault or to package itself and better still with a patch. Ideally we should use package defaults or maybe be more strict If everyone stop using these warnings then why is compiler adding them in the first place here I realize lies the difference of opinion. > The few packages that manually set -Werror are causing so much trouble, > and seeing warnings as errors in this code from 2018 that is currently > 298 commits behind upstream master won't bring actual benefits even > when the warnings are not gcc bugs. > > If you are interested in warnings you shouldn't have -Werror in very few > packages, but check for the most problematic warnings in all packages. > > E.g. -Wimplicit-function-declaration warnings are often the cause for > runime crashes, and a quick grep through my build logs shows that your > gettid patches to snort/lttng-tools/lttng-ust are not correct.[1] > maybe you should explain a bit more why they not correct these patches are to define local gettid function if system libc does not provide it there is a new syscall wrapper in glibc 2.30, older glibcs wont have it. > cu > Adrian > > [1] pid_t is an int in glibc, which makes the lack of prototypes > harmless in this specific case. > > -- > > "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out > of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. > "Only a promise," Lao Er said. > Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel