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,

Hi Masahiro,

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:33:19 +0900, Masahiro Yamada yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com wrote:

Hello, Albert and U-Boot developers.

The current status of this patch is Changes Requested.

I love -Wundef option to be in, but it looks like difficult for me to post the version 2.

The first choice to meet Albert's requirement is

...

Therefore I ask:

• that this patch be submitted along fixes to build failures it causes, as a proper patch series, by a single individual,

Sorry, I cannot do this because:

I am not familiar with architectures other than ARM. I understand only a few devices. To fix warnings in a correct way, a close look is often needed, but I cannot cover the whole code in the U-Boot tree.

If possible, could anyone take over this task?

The other option is

...

collected by someone in an officially created git repo or branch;

OK, I can do this. But I am not sure this will go well.

Even if I create a new repo u-boot-wundef, how many people will pay attention to this repository?

Most of users/developers track upstream repos where -Wundef warnings are never displayed.

This means no one will have the motivation to fix the warnings.

If this patch is desired, in which way should we continue? Comments are welcome.

Sorry not to have followed up earlier.

As I said, I want fixes for trivial cases -- cases where, for instance, a macro is used in an #if which has absolutely *no* definition in the whole codebase. I do not want fixes for all cases.

OTOH, to find out which failures would be trivial to fix and which ones would not, you'd have to go through all of them, which could be time-consuming, depending on the number of targets.

I thus suggest we use the typical U-Boot strategy: right at the beginning of the merge period, we apply the -Wundef patch onto all repos (or on the main repo and then pulled into others) and then wait for screams.

Screams should come fst from custodians, who routinely build for all targets of their assigned architecture. They will see which boards fail due to undefined macros and will report those failures on the list, copying the board maintainers (or subsystem owners if the issue is not board-specific.

All boards not fixed before merge window closure release will be declared dying; all those not fixed before 2014.01 will be declared dead, and orphaned and put in the scrapyard (and then, people who want them back can always resurrect *and fix* them).

Subsystems... will have to be fixed some way or other.

Of course, anyone with an interest can spontaneously provide fixes for boards or subsystems affected.

Adding Tom and Wolfgang for advice, but of course comments are welcome from everyone.

Best Regards, Masahiro Yamada

Amicalement,

Hi Simon,

On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 17:49:23 -0600, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Albert ARIBAUD albert.u.boot@aribaud.netwrote:

...

Hi Masahiro,

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:33:19 +0900, Masahiro Yamada yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com wrote:

...

Hello, Albert and U-Boot developers.

The current status of this patch is Changes Requested.

I love -Wundef option to be in, but it looks like difficult for me to post the version 2.

The first choice to meet Albert's requirement is

...

Therefore I ask:

• that this patch be submitted along fixes to build failures it causes, as a proper patch series, by a single individual,

Sorry, I cannot do this because:

I am not familiar with architectures other than ARM. I understand only a few devices. To fix warnings in a correct way, a close look is often needed, but I cannot cover the whole code in the U-Boot tree.

If possible, could anyone take over this task?

The other option is

...

collected by someone in an officially created git repo or branch;

OK, I can do this. But I am not sure this will go well.

Even if I create a new repo u-boot-wundef, how many people will pay attention to this repository?

Most of users/developers track upstream repos where -Wundef warnings are never displayed.

This means no one will have the motivation to fix the warnings.

If this patch is desired, in which way should we continue? Comments are welcome.

Sorry not to have followed up earlier.

As I said, I want fixes for trivial cases -- cases where, for instance, a macro is used in an #if which has absolutely *no* definition in the whole codebase. I do not want fixes for all cases.

OTOH, to find out which failures would be trivial to fix and which ones would not, you'd have to go through all of them, which could be time-consuming, depending on the number of targets.

I thus suggest we use the typical U-Boot strategy: right at the beginning of the merge period, we apply the -Wundef patch onto all repos (or on the main repo and then pulled into others) and then wait for screams.

Screams should come fst from custodians, who routinely build for all targets of their assigned architecture. They will see which boards fail due to undefined macros and will report those failures on the list, copying the board maintainers (or subsystem owners if the issue is not board-specific.

All boards not fixed before merge window closure release will be declared dying; all those not fixed before 2014.01 will be declared dead, and orphaned and put in the scrapyard (and then, people who want them back can always resurrect *and fix* them).

Subsystems... will have to be fixed some way or other.

Of course, anyone with an interest can spontaneously provide fixes for boards or subsystems affected.

Adding Tom and Wolfgang for advice, but of course comments are welcome from everyone.

Breaking a board by introducing a warning is bad, I don't think we can do that.

The idea *is* to break the board so that users or maintainers realize it builds on an undefined macro preprocessor symbol -- or so that we custodians realize no one is interested enough in that board to fix it, which is a sign that it should be removed from the code base. We've done such a thing before, actually, when a change required attention from a lot of maintainers.

But fixing common.h would be easy enough at least.

That can be done for cases where the missing symbol should indeed exist. When it should not exist any more, nothing can fix it but removing the code that uses the zombie symbol. And in both cases, breaking the build with a warning is the best way to find and resolve the issue.

Can you run buildman on all boards and see how many filesgenerate warnings?

I assume this request was directed at Masahiro Yamada.

I second the request: if only a few boards are affected, then instead of a system-wide change plus breaks, we could apply my first proposal, that is, Masahiro asking maintainers for changes and coordinating them in a branch, then a series.

Regards, Simon

Amicalement,