Re: [PATCH v1] travis-ci: override CFLAGS properly, add -Wdeclaration-after-statement
Lars Schneiderwrites: > Jeff Merkey made me aware of http://kernelnewbies.org/FirstKernelPatch [2] > where I found checkpatch.pl [3]. Would it make sense to check all commits > that are not in next/master/maint with this script on Travis-CI? That does not help very much. These changes are already shown to people and dirtied their eyes, and most likely I've already have wasted time tweaking the glitches out locally. The damage has already been done. It would make a lot of sense if the checkpatch is called inside Roberto Tyley's "pull-request-to-patch-submission" thing, though. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v1] travis-ci: override CFLAGS properly, add -Wdeclaration-after-statement
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Junio C Hamanowrote: > Lars Schneider writes: > >> Jeff Merkey made me aware of http://kernelnewbies.org/FirstKernelPatch [2] >> where I found checkpatch.pl [3]. Would it make sense to check all commits >> that are not in next/master/maint with this script on Travis-CI? > > That does not help very much. These changes are already shown to > people and dirtied their eyes, and most likely I've already have > wasted time tweaking the glitches out locally. The damage has > already been done. > > It would make a lot of sense if the checkpatch is called inside > Roberto Tyley's "pull-request-to-patch-submission" thing, though. Last time I reported a bug/feature request, Roberto was glad to be cc'd as he doesn't read the mailing list in full. So I cc'd him here. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v1] travis-ci: override CFLAGS properly, add -Wdeclaration-after-statement
On 08 Feb 2016, at 13:25, Jeff Kingwrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 09:59:18AM +0100, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote: > >> From: Lars Schneider >> >> The global Travis-CI environment variable CFLAGS did not override the >> CFLAGS variable in the makefile. Pass CFLAGS as make variable to >> override it properly. > > Makes sense. > >> In addition to that, add '-Wdeclaration-after-statement' to make a >> Travis-CI build fail (because of '-Werror') if the code does not adhere >> to the Git coding style. > > I think this is a good step, but is probably the tip of the iceberg. I > typically use: > > -Wall -Werror -Wdeclaration-after-statement > -Wpointer-arith -Wstrict-prototypes -Wvla > -Wold-style-declaration -Wold-style-definition > > Junio does his integration testing with a similar set, which I think you > can find in one of the scripts in his "todo" branch. I collected the warnings from Junio's Make [1] script and merged them with yours. This is the resulting warning list for clang and gcc: -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wno-format-zero-length -Wold-style-definition -Woverflow -Wpointer-arith -Wstrict-prototypes -Wunused -Wvla Gcc processes one extra warning that clang doesn't like: -Wold-style-declaration The build runs clean with all these checks enabled. [1] https://github.com/git/git/blob/todo/Make >> I made this patch because Peff pointed out to me that "git style doesn't >> allow declaration-after-statement" [1]. I wonder if it would make sense >> to add this check even in the makefile [2]? > > I think we keep the default CFLAGS to a pretty tame set, so that we > build out of the box on a large number of compilers. I know I have run > into problems with -Wold-style-* on clang (though perhaps that is no > longer the case, as I haven't tried recently), let alone truly antique > compilers. > > I have, however, wondered if it would make sense to codify this > knowledge in the Makefile with an optional knob. E.g., let DEVELOPER=1 > roughly mean "you are a git dev, you have a reasonably modern compiler, > and want to be as careful as possible before sending your patches". That make sense. However, in "development mode" I don't like Werror. How about two knobs? One called DEVELOPER which enables all the warnings above and one called CONTINUOUS_INTEGRATION that enables Werror in addition? >> I am no make expert, but I >> also wonder why we don't use the override directive [3] for the CFLAGS? >> AFAIK this would allow a make invocation like this: >> >> make target CFLAGS+=-Wdeclaration-after-statement > > I think it is rather the opposite. If we used: > > override CFLAGS+= ... > > in the Makefile, then if a user did: > > make CFLAGS=... > > we would add to their CFLAGS (whereas without the override, our > appending is ignored). Our Makefile solves that in a different way, > though. We pass $(ALL_CFLAGS) to the compiler, and that in turn is made > up of $(CFLAGS) and $(BASIC_CFLAGS). We assume the user tweaks the > former, and we set the latter based on Makefile knobs (e.g., NO_CURL, > etc). I see. Thanks for the explanation. Regarding CI checks: Jeff Merkey made me aware of http://kernelnewbies.org/FirstKernelPatch [2] where I found checkpatch.pl [3]. Would it make sense to check all commits that are not in next/master/maint with this script on Travis-CI? Stefan Beller recently mentioned "Adhere to the common coding style of Git" [4] where he removed explicit NULL checks. This kind of stuff could be checked automatically with checkpatch.pl as far as I can see. [2] http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/msg267445.html [3] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/scripts/checkpatch.pl [4] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/280842 Thanks, Lars -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v1] travis-ci: override CFLAGS properly, add -Wdeclaration-after-statement
On 09/02/16 17:47, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff Kingwrites: > >> Perhaps. I'm not sure that people actually use checkpatch.pl for git. >> >> Out of curiosity, I tried: >> >> mkdir out >> git format-patch -o out v2.6.0..v2.7.0 >> checkpatch.pl out/* >> >> It's rather noisy, and after skimming, I'd say (subjectively) that only >> a small fraction are actual style issues we try to enforce. So it would >> certainly need a fair bit of tweaking for regular use, I think. >> >> -Peff > > FWIW, I use the attached (it assumes a recent kernel checkout at > certain location and checkpatch-original.pl being a symlink to it) > occasionally. I found patches from some people are consistently > clean and suspect they may be running checkpatch themselves. > > -- >8 -- Meta/CP (not on 'todo' branch) -- >8 -- > #!/bin/sh > > # Run checkpatch on the series > Meta=$(git rev-parse --show-cdup)Meta > cp0="$Meta/checkpatch-original.pl" > cp1="$Meta/checkpatch.pl" > tmp="/var/tmp/CP.$$" > > mkdir "$tmp" || exit > trap 'rm -fr "$tmp"' 0 > > if! test -f "$cp1" || > test "$cp0" -nt "$cp1" > then > cat "$cp0" >"$cp1" && > (cd "$Meta" && > patch -p1 <<\EOF > --- a/checkpatch.pl > +++ b/checkpatch.pl > @@ -282,6 +282,8 @@ > Reviewed-by:| > Reported-by:| > Suggested-by:| > + Helped-by:| > + Mentored-by:| > To:| > Cc: > )}; > @@ -2338,7 +2340,7 @@ > > # check for new typedefs, only function parameters and sparse annotations > # make sense. > - if ($line =~ /\btypedef\s/ && > + if (0 && $line =~ /\btypedef\s/ && > $line !~ /\btypedef\s+$Type\s*\(\s*\*?$Ident\s*\)\s*\(/ && > $line !~ /\btypedef\s+$Type\s+$Ident\s*\(/ && > $line !~ /\b$typeTypedefs\b/ && > @@ -2607,8 +2609,7 @@ > > # No spaces for: > # -> > - # : when part of a bitfield > - } elsif ($op eq '->' || $opv eq ':B') { > + } elsif ($op eq '->') { > if ($ctx =~ /Wx.|.xW/) { > ERROR("SPACING", > "spaces prohibited around > that '$op' $at\n" . $hereptr); > > EOF > ) > fi || exit > > cat "$@" | git mailsplit -b -o"$tmp" >/dev/null > > for mail in "$tmp"/* > do > ( > git mailinfo -k "$mail.msg" "$mail.patch" >"$mail.info" <"$mail" > echo > cat "$mail.msg" > printf "%s\n" -- "---" > cat "$mail.patch" > ) >"$mail.mbox" > perl "$Meta/checkpatch.pl" $ignore --no-tree --max-line-length=120 > "$mail.mbox" || { > grep "Subject: " "$mail.info" > printf "%s\n" -- > "" > } > done I have used checkpatch on some small (new) projects from a 'style' target in the makefile. (Checking both *.c and *.h) If we try something similar on git, (while on current pu branch): $ git diff diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index fd80e94..3d6f1d8 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -2247,6 +2247,14 @@ test-%$X: test-%.o GIT-LDFLAGS $(GITLIBS) check-sha1:: test-sha1$X ./test-sha1.sh +ST_OBJ = $(patsubst %.o,%.st,$(C_OBJ)) + +$(ST_OBJ): %.st: %.c GIT-CFLAGS FORCE + checkpatch.pl --no-tree --show-types --ignore=NEW_TYPEDEFS -f $< + +.PHONY: style $(ST_OBJ) +style: $(ST_OBJ) + SP_OBJ = $(patsubst %.o,%.sp,$(C_OBJ)) $(SP_OBJ): %.sp: %.c GIT-CFLAGS FORCE $ make -k style >zzz 2>&1 $ grep "^WARNING:" zzz | wc -l 7320 $ grep "^ERROR:" zzz | wc -l 1155 $ To try and summarize a little: $ grep '^WARNING:' zzz | sort | uniq -c 1 WARNING:AVOID_EXTERNS: externs should be avoided in .c files 18 WARNING:BRACES: braces {} are not necessary for any arm of this statement 82 WARNING:BRACES: braces {} are not necessary for single statement blocks 5 WARNING:CVS_KEYWORD: CVS style keyword markers, these will _not_ be updated 23 WARNING:DEEP_INDENTATION: Too many leading tabs - consider code refactoring 2 WARNING:DEFAULT_NO_BREAK: switch default: should use break 33 WARNING:INDENTED_LABEL: labels should not be indented 539 WARNING:LEADING_SPACE: please, no spaces at the start of a line 1 WARNING:LINE_CONTINUATIONS: Avoid unnecessary line continuations 3422 WARNING:LONG_LINE: line over 80 characters 14 WARNING:MISSING_BREAK: Possible switch case/default not preceeded by break or fallthrough comment 1 WARNING:ONE_SEMICOLON: Statements terminations use 1 semicolon 19 WARNING:PREFER_PRINTF: __printf(string-index, first-to-check) is preferred over __attribute__((format(printf, string-index, first-to-check))) 7 WARNING:QUOTED_WHITESPACE_BEFORE_NEWLINE: unnecessary whitespace before a quoted newline 17
Re: [PATCH v1] travis-ci: override CFLAGS properly, add -Wdeclaration-after-statement
Roberto Tyleywrites: > I've not personally run checkpatch.pl (as Peff mentioned, it's not > actually a documented part of the Git project's recommend contribution > workflow) - I'm still trying to understand whether it will restrict > it's errors to just the things that are introduced in a patch, Yes, it works as a filter to pass a submitted patch through to catch issues on the new lines. You can obviously diff the current state with an empty tree and feed the result to it, which would give you all the existing issues ;-) but that is not very useful. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v1] travis-ci: override CFLAGS properly, add -Wdeclaration-after-statement
On 9 February 2016 at 18:42, Junio C Hamanowrote: > Lars Schneider writes: >> Jeff Merkey made me aware of http://kernelnewbies.org/FirstKernelPatch [2] >> where I found checkpatch.pl [3]. Would it make sense to check all commits >> that are not in next/master/maint with this script on Travis-CI? > > That does not help very much. These changes are already shown to > people and dirtied their eyes, and most likely I've already have > wasted time tweaking the glitches out locally. The damage has > already been done. > > It would make a lot of sense if the checkpatch is called inside > Roberto Tyley's "pull-request-to-patch-submission" thing, though. I've not personally run checkpatch.pl (as Peff mentioned, it's not actually a documented part of the Git project's recommend contribution workflow) - I'm still trying to understand whether it will restrict it's errors to just the things that are introduced in a patch, or if it will indiscriminately mention existing problems too (of which I guess there are many already present in the live Git codebase?). If it mentions _existing_ problems, I wouldn't personally want it in any automated flow until it can be tuned to find the trees of master/maint totally clean. At that point it could be added to the Travis build, and GitHub would automatically reflect the Travis status in any git/git PR. I like the idea of giving helpful guidance to users on how to make their patches cleaner - I'm not that enthusiastic about submitGit invoking the checkpatch.pl script directly at this point, given that it lives in a separate project (the linux kernel) and the version Junio uses is patched off _that_ - I'm lazy enough to not want to try to get that all to work reliably on a little transient Heroku box. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v1] travis-ci: override CFLAGS properly, add -Wdeclaration-after-statement
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 11:06:17AM +0100, Lars Schneider wrote: > I collected the warnings from Junio's Make [1] script and merged them with > yours. This is the resulting warning list for clang and gcc: > > -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wno-format-zero-length -Wold-style-definition > -Woverflow -Wpointer-arith -Wstrict-prototypes -Wunused -Wvla Sounds right. > > I have, however, wondered if it would make sense to codify this > > knowledge in the Makefile with an optional knob. E.g., let DEVELOPER=1 > > roughly mean "you are a git dev, you have a reasonably modern compiler, > > and want to be as careful as possible before sending your patches". > > That make sense. However, in "development mode" I don't like Werror. > How about two knobs? One called DEVELOPER which enables all the warnings > above and one called CONTINUOUS_INTEGRATION that enables Werror > in addition? I'm curious why you don't want -Werror. Junio is going to compile the result of applying your patch with it, so it makes sense to me to catch problems as early as possible. And while there are certainly false positives from gcc's warnings, we work to squelch them whether -Werror is in effect or not. So IMHO, -Werror is mostly about making sure you _see_ the warnings and don't lose them in a flood of compilation messages. > Regarding CI checks: > > Jeff Merkey made me aware of http://kernelnewbies.org/FirstKernelPatch [2] > where I found checkpatch.pl [3]. Would it make sense to check all commits > that are not in next/master/maint with this script on Travis-CI? > > Stefan Beller recently mentioned "Adhere to the common coding style of > Git" [4] where he removed explicit NULL checks. This kind of stuff could be > checked automatically with checkpatch.pl as far as I can see. Perhaps. I'm not sure that people actually use checkpatch.pl for git. Out of curiosity, I tried: mkdir out git format-patch -o out v2.6.0..v2.7.0 checkpatch.pl out/* It's rather noisy, and after skimming, I'd say (subjectively) that only a small fraction are actual style issues we try to enforce. So it would certainly need a fair bit of tweaking for regular use, I think. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v1] travis-ci: override CFLAGS properly, add -Wdeclaration-after-statement
Jeff Kingwrites: > Perhaps. I'm not sure that people actually use checkpatch.pl for git. > > Out of curiosity, I tried: > > mkdir out > git format-patch -o out v2.6.0..v2.7.0 > checkpatch.pl out/* > > It's rather noisy, and after skimming, I'd say (subjectively) that only > a small fraction are actual style issues we try to enforce. So it would > certainly need a fair bit of tweaking for regular use, I think. > > -Peff FWIW, I use the attached (it assumes a recent kernel checkout at certain location and checkpatch-original.pl being a symlink to it) occasionally. I found patches from some people are consistently clean and suspect they may be running checkpatch themselves. -- >8 -- Meta/CP (not on 'todo' branch) -- >8 -- #!/bin/sh # Run checkpatch on the series Meta=$(git rev-parse --show-cdup)Meta cp0="$Meta/checkpatch-original.pl" cp1="$Meta/checkpatch.pl" tmp="/var/tmp/CP.$$" mkdir "$tmp" || exit trap 'rm -fr "$tmp"' 0 if ! test -f "$cp1" || test "$cp0" -nt "$cp1" then cat "$cp0" >"$cp1" && (cd "$Meta" && patch -p1 <<\EOF --- a/checkpatch.pl +++ b/checkpatch.pl @@ -282,6 +282,8 @@ Reviewed-by:| Reported-by:| Suggested-by:| + Helped-by:| + Mentored-by:| To:| Cc: )}; @@ -2338,7 +2340,7 @@ # check for new typedefs, only function parameters and sparse annotations # make sense. - if ($line =~ /\btypedef\s/ && + if (0 && $line =~ /\btypedef\s/ && $line !~ /\btypedef\s+$Type\s*\(\s*\*?$Ident\s*\)\s*\(/ && $line !~ /\btypedef\s+$Type\s+$Ident\s*\(/ && $line !~ /\b$typeTypedefs\b/ && @@ -2607,8 +2609,7 @@ # No spaces for: # -> - # : when part of a bitfield - } elsif ($op eq '->' || $opv eq ':B') { + } elsif ($op eq '->') { if ($ctx =~ /Wx.|.xW/) { ERROR("SPACING", "spaces prohibited around that '$op' $at\n" . $hereptr); EOF ) fi || exit cat "$@" | git mailsplit -b -o"$tmp" >/dev/null for mail in "$tmp"/* do ( git mailinfo -k "$mail.msg" "$mail.patch" >"$mail.info" <"$mail" echo cat "$mail.msg" printf "%s\n" -- "---" cat "$mail.patch" ) >"$mail.mbox" perl "$Meta/checkpatch.pl" $ignore --no-tree --max-line-length=120 "$mail.mbox" || { grep "Subject: " "$mail.info" printf "%s\n" -- "" } done -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v1] travis-ci: override CFLAGS properly, add -Wdeclaration-after-statement
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 09:59:18AM +0100, larsxschnei...@gmail.com wrote: > From: Lars Schneider> > The global Travis-CI environment variable CFLAGS did not override the > CFLAGS variable in the makefile. Pass CFLAGS as make variable to > override it properly. Makes sense. > In addition to that, add '-Wdeclaration-after-statement' to make a > Travis-CI build fail (because of '-Werror') if the code does not adhere > to the Git coding style. I think this is a good step, but is probably the tip of the iceberg. I typically use: -Wall -Werror -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wpointer-arith -Wstrict-prototypes -Wvla -Wold-style-declaration -Wold-style-definition Junio does his integration testing with a similar set, which I think you can find in one of the scripts in his "todo" branch. > I made this patch because Peff pointed out to me that "git style doesn't > allow declaration-after-statement" [1]. I wonder if it would make sense > to add this check even in the makefile [2]? I think we keep the default CFLAGS to a pretty tame set, so that we build out of the box on a large number of compilers. I know I have run into problems with -Wold-style-* on clang (though perhaps that is no longer the case, as I haven't tried recently), let alone truly antique compilers. I have, however, wondered if it would make sense to codify this knowledge in the Makefile with an optional knob. E.g., let DEVELOPER=1 roughly mean "you are a git dev, you have a reasonably modern compiler, and want to be as careful as possible before sending your patches". > I am no make expert, but I > also wonder why we don't use the override directive [3] for the CFLAGS? > AFAIK this would allow a make invocation like this: > > make target CFLAGS+=-Wdeclaration-after-statement I think it is rather the opposite. If we used: override CFLAGS+= ... in the Makefile, then if a user did: make CFLAGS=... we would add to their CFLAGS (whereas without the override, our appending is ignored). Our Makefile solves that in a different way, though. We pass $(ALL_CFLAGS) to the compiler, and that in turn is made up of $(CFLAGS) and $(BASIC_CFLAGS). We assume the user tweaks the former, and we set the latter based on Makefile knobs (e.g., NO_CURL, etc). -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[PATCH v1] travis-ci: override CFLAGS properly, add -Wdeclaration-after-statement
From: Lars SchneiderThe global Travis-CI environment variable CFLAGS did not override the CFLAGS variable in the makefile. Pass CFLAGS as make variable to override it properly. In addition to that, add '-Wdeclaration-after-statement' to make a Travis-CI build fail (because of '-Werror') if the code does not adhere to the Git coding style. Inspired-by: Jeff King Signed-off-by: Lars Schneider --- I made this patch because Peff pointed out to me that "git style doesn't allow declaration-after-statement" [1]. I wonder if it would make sense to add this check even in the makefile [2]? I am no make expert, but I also wonder why we don't use the override directive [3] for the CFLAGS? AFAIK this would allow a make invocation like this: make target CFLAGS+=-Wdeclaration-after-statement Thanks, Lars [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/msg267273.html [2] https://github.com/git/git/blob/ff4ea6004fb48146330d663d64a71e7774f059f9/Makefile#L377 [3] https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Override-Directive .travis.yml | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/.travis.yml b/.travis.yml index c3bf9c6..29abff4 100644 --- a/.travis.yml +++ b/.travis.yml @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ env: - DEFAULT_TEST_TARGET=prove - GIT_PROVE_OPTS="--timer --jobs 3" - GIT_TEST_OPTS="--verbose --tee" -- CFLAGS="-g -O2 -Wall -Werror" +- CFLAGS="-g -O2 -Wall -Werror -Wdeclaration-after-statement" - GIT_TEST_CLONE_2GB=YesPlease # t9810 occasionally fails on Travis CI OS X # t9816 occasionally fails with "TAP out of sequence errors" on Travis CI OS X @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ before_install: echo "$(tput setaf 6)Git-LFS Version$(tput sgr0)"; git-lfs version; -before_script: make --jobs=2 +before_script: make CFLAGS="$CFLAGS" --jobs=2 script: make --quiet test -- 2.5.1 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html