On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Lukas Slebodnik <lslebodn(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On (26/09/16 12:14), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 03:39:19PM +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio(a)redhat.com>
>>> > Howdy!
>>> > I've suggested, a long time ago, that we could start making use of
>>> > GNULIB's compiler warnings from 'manywarnings' module. This
>>> > basically what we have been doing in a few projects that I (used to
>>> > and still) maintain (like spice-gtk and libosinfo, for instance).
>>> > For now I didn't try to fix any of the warnings that we cannot cope
>>> > with, mainly because I'm not sure whether you guys will agree on
>>> > it or not.
>>> > Here is an experimental patch that works properly on Fedora 24. I
>>> > still have to make some tests on RHEL-6, RHEL-7 and a few other
>>> > systems (Debian, at least) in order to make sure that we won't
>>> > the build because of the patch.
>>> > If you are okay with the change, I'll start going through the
>>> > that we cannot cope with and slowly start fixing them. Although, I
>>> > have the feeling that fixing some of them would cause a lot of
>>> > undesired changes, which will just bring troubles for ourselves when
>>> > backporting fixes downstream (and here I'm talking about
>>> > -Wformat-signedess, -Wsign-compare, -Wunused-parameter, ... for
>>> > instance).
>>> > I'm looking forward to hear some feedback!
>>> > Best Regards,
>>> > --
>>> > Fabiano Fidêncio
>> I'm sorry this patch totally stalled.
>> In general I'm all for adding more checks and let a machine help us
>> write safer code. I'm not sure if adding all warnings on all platforms
>> will ever be possible, though. For example, there was a warning in
>> krb5_child because an old libkrb5 release used a "char *" parameter
>> where a "const char *" was more appropriate and we said we'd never
>> this because a newer version fixed the API (or used a different
>> function? Not sure..)
>> But I wonder how to move this patch forward the best. Are there any
>> warnings that you think are more important to enable than others?
>> What about enabling a single warning, then running SSSD build and
>> creating a ticket with the warnings (running make 1</dev/null might be a
>> good way to start..). Then we can see what needs fixing in SSSD for each
>> of the additional warnings or if we decide this is not worth our time,
>> we can either close or defer that ticket.
>> These tickets might also be a good way for a newcomer to contribute some
>> code to SSSD!
>So, general comments here.
>We have a list of the current warnings that we cannot deal with in
>src/sssd-compile-warnings.m4. From this list we can, already, have a
>good idea about what is worth to fix or not.
>About the idea to try to build SSSD ... well, it can be done.
>I'll take some time later on and prepare a bug for each of the
>warnings that we can't cope with and them we can discuss there whether
>would make sense to fix those or not.
Here are few of my observation.
The patch added 255 new configure time checks.
The configure tooks 5 extra seconds in my case (everything in ram-disk).
But in our CI machines it added +20 seconds in average.
The configure scriot is execute 5 times in our CI-script
(debug build, distcheck, intgcheck, mock, coverage build)
In Summary, the patch would add unnecessary 100 seconds.
I would prefer if all compile time warnings were part of AM_CFLAGS
and we shoul add compile time checks only for warnings which are supported by
new compilers or are supported only by gcc or only by clang.
I'm completely fine dropping the patch.