On 10/12/2016 07:00 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.8] ipxe: update to newer
>> That was eventually done. I'm not sure exactly when the change was
>> made. Does gcc -Wno-foo work properly on all the gcc's we care about ?
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.8] ipxe: update to newer
>> Just fyi I have run into an issue with -Wno-override-init use in Linux
>> 4.8 on gcc 4.1.x, so what you say doesn't appear to hold for all gcc
>> versions we permit to be used.
> Well, that answers my question above.
> I think the right approach is to:
> * Test -Wno-this-is-not-a-warning-option. If gcc accepts it,
> add -Wno-something to disable the nonnull check·
Back compatibility is in fact not a problem. These options would only be
passed on when gcc6+ is used
> * Review the misleading indentations and if there are only a few, fix
> them in a downstream patch. Or, if there are many, decide to
> tolerate them.
There are more warnings than just indentation and nonnull checks:
(The last two flagged actual bugs that have been fixed upstream).
Some of the warnings can be addressed by backporting upstream patches
but there are a few for which backporting will involve much more code
movement than fixing the code ourselves.
Xen-devel mailing list