Hi Masahiro,
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:45:18 +0900, Masahiro Yamada yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com wrote:
Hello Albert
Will the patch cause some targets to break?
I don't think so because -Wundef option just prints warnings.
GCC manual says: -Wundef Warn if an undefined identifier is evaluated in an ‘#if’ directive.
After applying this patch, I noticed warnings like follows:
include/common.h:240:11: warning: "CONFIG_ENV_ADDR" is not defined [-Wundef] include/common.h:240:46: warning: "CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_BASE" is not defined [-Wundef] include/common.h:241:3: warning: "CONFIG_ENV_ADDR" is not defined [-Wundef] include/common.h:241:23: warning: "CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_BASE" is not defined [-Wundef] include/common.h:241:49: warning: "CONFIG_SYS_MONITOR_LEN" is not defined [-Wundef]
If this patch is applied soon, we have enough time to fix warnings before u-boot-2013.10 release.
If I have time, I'd like to make effort to eliminate such warnings. Of course, patches from other contributers are very welcome.
I U-Boot we have a policy that "warnings are errors", so yes, this change breaks some boards.
I would indeed ask that any warnings this swtich causes to appear should be fixed.
However, the problem is you're doing a change across *all architectures* but will most probably only test it for a few, if not only one.
This means your patch will require *all* custodians to verify that everything keeps building fine for *their* architecture.
[ $ sudo wdenk || echo "Oh well." ]
Therefore I ask:
- that this patch be submitted along fixes to build failures it causes, as a proper patch series, by a single individual, or collected by someone in an officially created git repo or branch;
- that the series be tested before submission for at least one target of each architecture (not necessarily by a single person, though: if collected in a repo or branch, testing would occur when people submit individual fixes, and the fix would only be accepted if such testing has been done);
- that whenever a version of the series is submitted, all architecture custodians be CC:ed and asked explicitly to build the series for the whole of their architecture (for ARM, you can Cc: me only, as I also build all the other ARM trees);
- that the custodians report to the submitter all build failures, and that the submitter fix and tests for any such report (or again, gets it tested by someone else)
[ exit ]
I'd love to see this warning in; but I'd hate to see uncoordinated, loosely inter-related, patches from various individuals ending up as noise. Let's make this in an organized fashion.
Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Amicalement,