Re: DIAGNOSTIC for modules (Re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/usb)

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <ebcb0c28-7e32-7a71-7912-4bec6ee63f52%gmail.com@localhost>,
Rin Okuyama  <rokuyama.rk%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 2019/02/13 6:07, Paul Goyette wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Rin Okuyama wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> As Martin pointed out, it is useful for debugging to turn on
>>> DIAGNOSTIC for modules (for non-release branches).
>>>
>>> Now, all modules for amd64 are successfully built with DIAGNOSTIC.
>>>
>>> I'd like to commit the patch below, if there's no objection.
>> 
>> This would be very helpful.
>> 
>> I would also wonder if we could increase the WARNS?= level from 3 to 5
>(to match the current WARNS?= level used for kernel builds).  Has anyone
>tried to see how many modules would fail with WARNS?=5Â  ??
>
>Thank you for your comment.
>
>Well, I examined that (both for GCC7 & clang). Among ~ 360 modules,
>- 2 (lua and zfs) need WARNS=0
>- 1 (solaris) needs WARNS=1
>- 136 need WARNS=3 (mostly due to sign-compare)
>- 4 need WARNS=4
>- Others can be compiled with WARNS=5
>
>I propose this patch:
>http://www.netbsd.org/~rin/modules_bump_warns_20190213.patch
>
>- Bump default value of WARNS for modules from 3 to 5
>- Explicitly set WARNS for modules that fail with WARNS=5
>- Then, expect someone in charge will fix them ;-)
>
>Thoughts?

Go for it, we can fix the ones that don't come from 3rd party sources
opportunistically.

christos