Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 23:38:45 -0500 From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org>, "current@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: (Unconditionally) enable -fno-strict-overflow for kernel builds Message-ID: <CAF6rxgkXQ80_CrGwdDWQNLUqeLYcq%2BMFULazC=SbA0HrYe1abw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAGE5yCovP17txufd6mfAPUk%2B2WiLMnCis=zQN6bZ25qp=DJ2Ng@mail.gmail.com> References: <20131130135616.GA59496@kib.kiev.ua> <E3E2524B-4423-4962-BFD7-9A81424296F7@FreeBSD.org> <CAJ-VmonQip5Q%2BDfSd_dba_=g8bZYM9uyhYw8XmhU4wGydnJJtg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGE5yCovP17txufd6mfAPUk%2B2WiLMnCis=zQN6bZ25qp=DJ2Ng@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > [..] >> Are you able to have clang/llvm/gcc tell us where/when code is relying >> on undefined behaviour? So we can, like, fix them? > > It wasn't all that long ago that we had this wonderful thing called > -Werror and had a clean kernel build. > > The problem is that gcc and clang have different warning sets. I seem > to recall we had -Werror on for gcc and off for clang. IMHO it would > be more useful to do it the other way around. Not all cases can be caught by static analysis. They would all be caught be the integer sanitizer. However, these have not yet been ported to FreeBSD. -- Eitan Adler
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgkXQ80_CrGwdDWQNLUqeLYcq%2BMFULazC=SbA0HrYe1abw>