On 2023-07-31 15:17:18+0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
It will help the developers to avoid cruft and detect some bugs.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh linux@weissschuh.net
tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile index f42adef87e12..72227d75c6da 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ endif CFLAGS_s390 = -m64 CFLAGS_mips = -EL CFLAGS_STACKPROTECTOR ?= $(call cc-option,-mstack-protector-guard=global $(call cc-option,-fstack-protector-all)) -CFLAGS ?= -Os -fno-ident -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -std=c89 \ +CFLAGS ?= -Os -fno-ident -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -std=c89 -Wall \
Very good static analyzer support.
What about further add more options?
+CFLAGS ?= -Os -fno-ident -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -std=c89 -Wall -Wextra -Werror\A simple test shows, it can catch more issues.
-Wextra will need some further rework for 32bit architectures to avoid some warnings. (At least mips for which I tested it)
I don't think -Werror is appropriate. If we want to test the functioning of nolibc with weird compilers these may very well add new warnings and that shouldn't break the build.
Thanks, Zhangjin
$(call cc-option,-fno-stack-protector) \ $(CFLAGS_$(ARCH)) $(CFLAGS_STACKPROTECTOR)LDFLAGS := -s
-- 2.41.0