Hi Simon,
On 5/4/26 10:38 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Quentin,
On 2026-05-04T13:20:27, Quentin Schulz <[email protected]> wrote:
kbuild: enable -Werror for hostprogs
[ Upstream commit 27758d8c2583d10472b745a43ff86fef96c11ef7 ]
Original commit log:
The hostprog compilers and linkers do not share the regular compiler flags,
so they are not affected by CONFIG_WERROR or W=e. As hostprogs are used
during the bootstrap of the build, they can't depend on kconfig options.
Enable -Werror unconditionally.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz <[email protected]>
scripts/Makefile.extrawarn | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.extrawarn b/scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
@@ -109,3 +109,8 @@ KBUILD_LDFLAGS += --fatal-warnings
KBUILD_RUSTFLAGS += -Dwarnings
endif
+
+# Hostprog flags are used during build bootstrapping and can not rely on
CONFIG_ symbols.
+KBUILD_HOSTCFLAGS += -Werror
+KBUILD_HOSTLDFLAGS += -Wl,--fatal-warnings
+KBUILD_HOSTRUSTFLAGS += -Dwarnings
Just to check, is there a reason to keep this and patch 16 separate?
Backports from Linux kernel where they already are separate.
The next patch immediately undoes the 'unconditionally' claim made
here. Anyone bisecting through this point gets host tools failing on
any new compiler warning, with no way to opt out short of
HOSTCFLAGS=-Wno-error - squashing would also let you drop the comment
that patch 16 then has to rewrite.
Fair enough.
If you'd rather keep them split to preserve upstream history, you
could mention in the commit message that the next patch makes it
conditional.
I would prefer to, it should make it easier to then see which patches
were backported or not (git log --oneline). But I understand this
unnecessarily breaks bisectability, so no strong opinion.
Cheers,
Quentin
