Re: [PATCH v2] add DEVELOPER makefile knob to check for acknowledged warnings

From: Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 28, 2016, 10:35 UTC
Message-ID: <47DA71B9-5A00-48E4-B7A8-6C678F597627@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8Dc1dHp7kGgz_pY1uoXum-k3gnzD0AHFsaLQzuZihUKcw@mail.gmail.com>

On 26 Feb 2016, at 10:33, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 30 quoted lines

> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Lars Schneider
> <larsxschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 26 Feb 2016, at 10:26, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:42 PM,  <larsxschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> +ifdef DEVELOPER
>>>> +       CFLAGS +=       -Werror \
>>>> +                               -Wdeclaration-after-statement \
>>>> +                               -Wno-format-zero-length \
>>>> +                               -Wold-style-definition \
>>>> +                               -Woverflow \
>>>> +                               -Wpointer-arith \
>>>> +                               -Wstrict-prototypes \
>>>> +                               -Wunused \
>>>> +                               -Wvla
>>> 
>>> With the exception of $(SCRIPTS) in Makefile, I think we prefer to
>>> avoid \ and have one addition per statement
>>> 
>> I guessed that because I actually looked through the makefile to find how you deal with line
>> brakes. The problem here was that this line gets really long and then it is hard to see what
>> warnings are enabled.
>> Would you be OK with using \ for readability here?
> 
> Probably misunderstanding. I meant something like this
> 
> CFLAGS += -Werror
> CFLAGS += -Wdecl..
> CFLAGS += -Wno-form..

Oh. I just realized the patch made it already into master. Do you think I should submit a follow up patch? I also wonder, do you see an advantage of one style over the other or do you want me to change it for consistency?

Thanks, Lars