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

[Rin Okuyama <rokuyama.rk%gmail.com@localhost>]

On 2019/02/13 21:13, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> 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?=5  ??
> >
> > 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

Thank you for your comment. I will commit it within a few days,
if there's no objection.

rin