Hi, On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 20:14, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > > On 5/11/20 3:59 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:37 AM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Masahiro, > >> > >> On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 05:00, Masahiro Yamada <masahi...@kernel.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 3:16 AM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 09:16:40PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > >>>>> Hi Masahiro, > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 19:54, Masahiro Yamada <masahi...@kernel.org> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 10:39 AM Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Masahiro, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 06:21, Masahiro Yamada > >>>>>>> <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Add -Werror=implicit-function-declaration as Linux does. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If you do not check the prototype, it may go wrong run-time. > >>>>>>>> It is better to break the build, and require to include correct > >>>>>>>> headers. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> > >>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Makefile | 2 +- > >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> NAK > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We already get a warning in this situation. This makes it painful for > >>>>>>> development since things that should be warnings end up being errors. > >>>>>>> So your build fails when really it should work well enough to do a > >>>>>>> test run with your new code. I don't think it has any benefit on code > >>>>>>> quality since we already detect warnings in gitlab, etc. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> U-Boot is set up so that warnings are reported and are easy to spot if > >>>>>>> you use 'make -s' (i.e. not buried in the output). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>> Simon > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Linux added this flag in 2007. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The intention seems to break the build earlier > >>>>>> when a non-existing function is used. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I have not seen compliant about this flag in Linux. > >>>>>> What does it make different for U-Boot ? > >>>>> > >>>>> Well that commit message is quite misleading. The author is presumably > >>>>> ignoring the warnings that come out in the compile phase. For me they > >>>>> come up loud and clear. I don't know why it takes half an hour to get > >>>>> to the link stage. My average incremental build time is under 4 > >>>>> seconds including the link. > >>>>> > >>>>> Finally, the warning does not tell you anything about whether the > >>>>> function doesn't exist. It just tells you you have left out a header > >>>>> file. > >>>>> > >>>>> I know how much of a pain this is, because coreboot does this. It does > >>>>> it partly because there is so much build output that the warnings are > >>>>> invisible unless they actually halt the build. Even then you have to > >>>>> search for what went wrong. > >>>> > >>>> I'm not immediately sure of the right answer here. Part of the problem > >>>> is that even with 'make -s' U-Boot can be horribly noisy due to device > >>>> tree warnings. I assume Yamada-san ran in to a problem and was > >>>> expecting the build to have failed but instead was chasing down a > >>>> run-time debug until finding this. > >>> > >>> > >>> I did not run into a problem. > >>> > >>> When I was replacing <common.h> with some lighter headers, > >>> I missed some warnings ( but I noticed them after all). > >>> > >>> In Linux, if I miss to include a header, it fails to build. > >>> In U-Boot, it does not. > >>> > >>> Personally, I like to align with Linux policy, > >>> but if you are not comfortable with this patch, > >>> please feel free to ignore it. > >> > >> I really don't understand the point of warnings if we are just going > >> to turn them into errors. > >> > >> How about adding an option to tell U-Boot to use -Werror, etc.? Then > >> those that what it can enable it. > > > > > > OK. We can do it with > > > > > > make KCFLAGS=-Werror > > I've had a few of these failures due to implicit fn declaration, so I'd > be all for adding the error by default. And if things error out and you > are too lazy to spot the error, use make -k ; make -k and the error will > be right there at the end.
So are you ignoring the warning? Is it because there are so many device-tree warnings? Should we figure out how to silence those things? > > So I'm fine with this patch as-is. Perhaps you can use Masahiro's option above? Regards, Simon
