From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/895 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Pennington Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: A little more progress today with clang/LLVM Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 21:35:59 -0500 Message-ID: <2233705.A3NXMro2gt@main.pennware.com> References: <6099278.PLLg0Rc9Yf@main.pennware.com> <20120522015935.GQ163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1337654228 23455 80.91.229.3 (22 May 2012 02:37:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 02:37:08 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-896-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue May 22 04:37:06 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SWeyA-0000Qg-FB for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 22 May 2012 04:37:06 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 8145 invoked by uid 550); 22 May 2012 02:37:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 8137 invoked from network); 22 May 2012 02:37:06 -0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=D8PF24tj c=1 sm=0 a=/l7PkcR/UKDnn7Q2wmGJww==:17 a=hdNgKtvFP3AA:10 a=fR_ARpL9IlcA:10 a=gQu5c9skE_AA:10 a=msTO8fkKGJEA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=N4Ps669bAAAA:8 a=ayC55rCoAAAA:8 a=kmv2XNsvrO3fyBmFV9wA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=/l7PkcR/UKDnn7Q2wmGJww==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 65.26.59.215 User-Agent: KMail/4.8.3 (Linux/3.3.2-6.fc16.x86_64; KDE/4.8.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20120522015935.GQ163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:895 Archived-At: On Monday, May 21, 2012 09:59:35 PM Rich Felker wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 08:47:04PM -0500, Richard Pennington wrote: > > I've decided to keep the musl build scheme with a few minor changes (e.g. > > replace libgcc.a with libcompiler-rt.a). > > > > I'm now building for i386, arm, and x86_64. I enabled clang warnings > > -Werror and had to inhibit a few, some of which look like they need some > > attention. Here's my current list: > > > > -Werror -Qunused-arguments -Wno-unneeded-internal-declaration > > -Wno-cast-align -Wno-incompatible-pointer-types > > -Wno-implicit-function-declaration -Wno- string-plus-int > > -Wno-pointer-sign -Wno-array-bounds > > Aside from unused arguments (a bogus warning IMO) and string plus int > (why is this a warning?), these sound like they could be issues to > address. I cleaned up all the pointer signedness warnings (which > should be errors, per the C language) with gcc, so I'm unsure why > they're showing up again. Implicit function declarations sound > particularly bad, but gcc didn't report any to me. The rest are > *probably* non-issues, but I'd like to check them if you could send > the warning output to the list. > > > I think that bits/alltypes.h might need some clang specific tweaking. > > Can you elaborate? There are some differences between what clang thinks should be the parameters of well known functions and what your header files say. I'll get you more details. > > > I'm going to start looking at the mips, ppc, and microblaze bits now, and > > will look at warning elimination after. > > I'll be happy to look at it for you. :) > > Rich I'll send you the list. The only one that looked sort of bad to me was the out of bounds array reference. It was on the x86_64 in the pthread_barrier_t access. clang complained about referencing __p[4], which is out of bounds. That code is a little cryptic to me right now, since I'm a newbi. ;-) -Rich