public inbox for passt-dev@passt.top
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
To: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Cc: passt-dev@passt.top
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] Improvements to static checker invocation
Date: Sat, 16 May 2026 17:45:58 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260516174557.007a0d7b@elisabeth> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260512055256.1800449-1-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>

On Tue, 12 May 2026 15:52:44 +1000
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:

> While working on pesto, I ran into a number of awkward errors with the
> static checkers.  This series reworks the invocation of the checkers
> in a way that will let us deal with that.  As a bonus, it also gives
> us static checking for passt-repair.  It also a number of other
> cleanups to the Makefile that seemed natural along the way.
> 
> v3:
>  - Rework changes to $(FLAGS) so they're much less likely to have
>    side effects we're not ready for.
> v2:
>  - Fixed nasty test failure in test/build/build.py

Tested with current packaging rules / build scripts on Alpine, Debian,
Fedora, openSUSE, and applied (dropping extra whitespace in 4/12 as
noted).

I think it would be nice, as a follow-up, to drop the comments that 4/12
introduced:

+# Mandatory preprocessor flags that won't be overridden with $(CFLAGS)
+# FIXME: Could some of these be default, rather than required?

(same for CPPFLAGS), because, as we discussed, those are all default,
can actually be overridden as distribution packages already do (so this
is misleading for distribution maintainers), and I don't see a
particular value in distinguishing what flags *could* be perhaps
dropped to have something strictly building. They are all useful for a
reason or another.

But I didn't touch those, I didn't feel like sneaking in a substantial
change like that and I didn't want to delay this series further, either.

I had a quick look at package recipes of Chimera, PLD, and Void Linux,
I didn't test things there but I don't see any way this series could
cause issues there.

Somewhat interestingly, I came across many different ways to override
flags, taking -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE as example:

- Alpine doesn't override / set it at all, the test in our Makefile
  doesn't set it there, either. Notably, this test was added in commit
  38363964fc96 ("Makefile: Enable _FORTIFY_SOURCE iff needed"),
  specifically for Gentoo

- Debian and Void Linux append -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2, that is, they
  duplicate our flag, in CFLAGS

- Fedora (with my spec file, where I didn't set any %_fortify_level)
  overrides it with -Wp,-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 in CFLAGS

- openSUSE used to append -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 (similar to Debian and
  Void Linux), but now uses -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3

- PLD Linux appends -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2

I found a rather impressive summary here:

  https://www.anthes.is/nix-internals-cflags.html

-- 
Stefano


      parent reply	other threads:[~2026-05-16 15:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-12  5:52 David Gibson
2026-05-12  5:52 ` [PATCH v3 01/12] Makefile: Use make variables for static checker configuration David Gibson
2026-05-12  5:52 ` [PATCH v3 02/12] Makefile: Make conditional definition of $(BIN) clearer David Gibson
2026-05-12  5:52 ` [PATCH v3 03/12] Makefile: Use common binary compilation rule David Gibson
2026-05-12  5:52 ` [PATCH v3 04/12] Makefile: Remove unhelpful $(HEADERS) variable David Gibson
2026-05-12  5:52 ` [PATCH v3 05/12] Makefile: Add header dependencies for secondary binaries David Gibson
2026-05-12  5:52 ` [PATCH v3 06/12] Makefile: Split $(FLAGS) into cpp and cc components David Gibson
2026-05-13  7:11   ` Stefano Brivio
2026-05-14  2:01     ` David Gibson
2026-05-14  9:41       ` Stefano Brivio
2026-05-15  0:59         ` David Gibson
2026-05-16 15:45   ` Stefano Brivio
2026-05-17  0:48     ` David Gibson
2026-05-12  5:52 ` [PATCH v3 07/12] cppcheck, clang-tidy: Static checkers don't need non-preprocessor flags David Gibson
2026-05-12  5:52 ` [PATCH v3 08/12] Makefile: Split static checker targets David Gibson
2026-05-12  5:52 ` [PATCH v3 09/12] passt-repair: Split out inotify handling to its own function David Gibson
2026-05-12  5:52 ` [PATCH v3 10/12] passt-repair: Simplify construction of Unix path from inotify David Gibson
2026-05-12  5:52 ` [PATCH v3 11/12] passt-repair: Run static checkers David Gibson
2026-05-12  5:52 ` [PATCH v3 12/12] pesto: Run static checkers on pesto sources David Gibson
2026-05-16 15:45 ` Stefano Brivio [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260516174557.007a0d7b@elisabeth \
    --to=sbrivio@redhat.com \
    --cc=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
    --cc=passt-dev@passt.top \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://passt.top/passt

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for IMAP folder(s).