On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:47:00PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 5:35 PM Philip Li <philip.li@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 11:39:08AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:59 AM Dennis Zhou <dennis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 08:27:43PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > > > Hi Dennis, > > > > > Below is a 0day bot report from a build w/ Clang. Warning looks legit, > > > > > can you please take a look? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah thanks for this! Yeah that was a miss when I switched from flags -> > > > > an enum and didn't update the declaration properly. I'll be sending out > > > > a v4 as another fix for arm has some rebase conflicts. > > > > > > > > Is there a way to enable so I get these emails directly? > > > > > > + Rong, Philip > > > > > > The reports have only been sent to our mailing list where we've been > > > manually triaging them. The issue with enabling them globally was > > > that the script to reproduce the warning still doesn't mention how to > > > build w/ Clang. Hi Nick, i forgot one question. Is it still expected to use latest clang to build test? Any possibility the issue is related to clang compiler itself? Thanks > > Thanks Nick for continuous caring on this. One thing we initially worry > > is how to avoid duplicated reports to developer, like the one that can > > be same as gcc's finding. We haven't found a way to effectively handle > > this. > > Thanks for maintaining an invaluable tool. > > How would the reports be duplicated? Does 0day bot build with GCC, > then rebuild with Clang? > > Regardless, does it matter? If I make a mistake, and get two build > failure emails from 0day bot instead of one, does it matter? Sometimes > developers may just get one, as some warnings are unique to each > compiler. Maybe it runs the risk of folks ignoring the email if the > volume is too much, but do authors generally ignore 0day bot emails? > (I'd hope not). > > > > > > > > > In general the reports have been high value (I ignore most reports > > > with -Wimplicit-function-declaration, which is the most frequent as it > > > shows the patch was not compile tested at all). > > Do we mean the report with -Wimplicit-function-declaration can be duplicated > > to gcc, so we can ignore them to avoid duplication to developer? > > Many of the warnings GCC has Clang does as well. > -Wimplicit-function-declaration is the most common warning I see in > triage, which developers would see regardless of toolchain had they > compiled first before pushing. It might be interesting to see maybe > the intersection or common flags between GCC and Clang, and only email > Clang reports for warnings unique to clang? I think CFLAGS can even > be passed into make invocations so you could do: > $ make CC=clang KBUILD_CFLAGS=<list of flags common to GCC and Clang; > -Wno-implicit-function-declaration -Wno-...> > such that any resulting warnings were unique to Clang. I'd expect > such a list to quickly get stale over time though. > > > > > > > > > Rong, Philip, it's been a while since we talked about this last. Is > > > there a general timeline of when these reports will be turned on > > > globally? Even if the directions to reproduce aren't quite right, > > For the timeline, it's not decided due to the duplication concern. We tend > > to look into next year after other priorities are solved for this year. > > > > > generally there's enough info in the existing bugs where authors can > > > rewrite their patch without even needing to rebuild with Clang (though > > > having correct directions to reproduce would be nice, we could wait > > > until someone asked for them explicitly). > > > > > > -- > > > Thanks, > > > ~Nick Desaulniers > > > > -- > Thanks, > ~Nick Desaulniers
