public inbox for passt-dev@passt.top
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
To: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
Cc: passt-dev@passt.top
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/13] cppcheck: Split out essential defines into a BASE_CPPFLAGS variable
Date: Wed, 6 May 2026 18:08:52 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <afr3FMJ8PqK1yCF_@zatzit> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260506094650.17090699@elisabeth>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4327 bytes --]

On Wed, May 06, 2026 at 09:46:51AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 13:23:27 +1000
> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > Our cppcheck target need certain flags from the compiler so that they it
> > can analyse the code correctly.  Currently we extract these rather
> > awkwardly from FLAGS / CFLAGS / CPPFLAGS.  But this means we inhibit one
> > of cppcheck's features: by default it will attempt to analyse paths for all
> > combinations of compile time options, not just a single one.
> > 
> > Analysing *all* paths doesn't work for us because many of the -D options we
> > use are essential to compile at all, so unless we supply those to cppcheck,
> > overriding the default behaviour we get many spurious errors.  At the
> > moment, however, we give cppcheck *all* our -D options, including
> > conditional / configurable ones, not just the essential ones.
> > 
> > All cppcheck really needs here is those essential -D options.  Split those
> > into a separate variable, and use that directly rather than the clunky
> > $(filter) expression.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> > ---
> >  Makefile | 14 ++++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > index 17e70d22..0de98375 100644
> > --- a/Makefile
> > +++ b/Makefile
> > @@ -30,11 +30,15 @@ ifeq ($(shell $(CC) -O2 -dM -E - < /dev/null 2>&1 | grep ' _FORTIFY_SOURCE ' > /
> >  FORTIFY_FLAG := -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
> >  endif
> >  
> > +# Require preprocessor flags we can't build without
> > +BASE_CPPFLAGS := -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 -D_GNU_SOURCE \
> > +	-DPAGE_SIZE=$(shell getconf PAGE_SIZE) \
> > +	-DVERSION=\"$(VERSION)\"
> > +
> >  FLAGS := -Wall -Wextra -Wno-format-zero-length -Wformat-security
> > -FLAGS += -pedantic -std=c11 -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 -D_GNU_SOURCE
> > +FLAGS += -pedantic -std=c11
> 
> I tried a bit harder but this distinction looks bogus to me (we must

I'm not sure which distinction you're referring to.  There are two
options AFAICT: the distinction between "required" and "default only"
flags.  That one I'll grant is a bit tenuous.  Mind you, that's kind
of already the split between FLAGS and CFLAGS.

The other is the distinction between flags for the preprocessor versus
for the compiler proper.  That's the one I actually need to do what
this series is aiming to do.

> *not* build without -std=c11, FORTIFY_SOURCE, -pie, -fPIE, or
> DUAL_STACK_SOCKETS anyway)

Agreed for -pie and -fPIE.  Maybe for -std=c11.  FORTIFY_SOURCE seems
like something we want to encourage, but by no means essential to the
build.  DUAL_STACK_SOCKETS seems like it should be configurable.
Omitting when possible will waste memory, but should not result in a
failed or incorrect build.

> and adapting the whole series to a
> BASE_CPPFLAGS / CPPFLAGS / CFLAGS split is rather time consuming, even
> if I drop unrelated patches such as 5/13 to 8/13 and 10/13 to 13/13, so
> I would drop this series for now.
> 
> I'm running static checkers on pesto manually for the moment.

Eh, ok.  I'll rework on top of whatever once I'm back.

> Note that the rationale given for 3/13 and 4/13 ignores documented
> reasons behind the current sets of flags. It can be changed indeed but
> functionality needs to be maintained, as I already mentioned in the
> discussion about 4/13.
> 
> >  FLAGS +=  $(FORTIFY_FLAG) -O2 -pie -fPIE
> > -FLAGS += -DPAGE_SIZE=$(shell getconf PAGE_SIZE)
> > -FLAGS += -DVERSION=\"$(VERSION)\"
> > +FLAGS += $(BASE_CPPFLAGS)
> >  FLAGS += -DDUAL_STACK_SOCKETS=$(DUAL_STACK_SOCKETS)
> >  
> >  PASST_SRCS = arch.c arp.c bitmap.c checksum.c conf.c dhcp.c dhcpv6.c \
> > @@ -195,6 +199,4 @@ CPPCHECK_FLAGS = --std=c11 --error-exitcode=1 --enable=all --force	\
> >  	 -D CPPCHECK_6936
> >  
> >  cppcheck: $(PASST_SRCS) $(HEADERS)
> > -	$(CPPCHECK) $(CPPCHECK_FLAGS) 					\
> > -		$(filter -D%,$(FLAGS) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS)) $^		\
> > -		$^
> > +	$(CPPCHECK) $(CPPCHECK_FLAGS) $(BASE_CPPFLAGS) $^
> 
> -- 
> Stefano
> 

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2026-05-06  8:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-04-21  3:23 [PATCH v2 00/13] Improvements to static checker invocation David Gibson
2026-04-21  3:23 ` [PATCH v2 01/13] Makefile: Use make variables for static checker configuration David Gibson
2026-05-05 10:14   ` Laurent Vivier
2026-05-05 10:20     ` Stefano Brivio
2026-05-05 10:49       ` Laurent Vivier
2026-05-05 13:14         ` Stefano Brivio
2026-05-05 14:04     ` David Gibson
2026-04-21  3:23 ` [PATCH v2 02/13] cppcheck: Split out essential defines into a BASE_CPPFLAGS variable David Gibson
2026-05-05 10:26   ` Laurent Vivier
2026-05-06  7:46   ` Stefano Brivio
2026-05-06  8:08     ` David Gibson [this message]
2026-04-21  3:23 ` [PATCH v2 03/13] Makefile: Remove preprocessor flags from $(FLAGS) David Gibson
2026-04-21  3:23 ` [PATCH v2 04/13] Makefile: Remove non-standard $(FLAGS) variable David Gibson
2026-04-28  7:17   ` Stefano Brivio
2026-04-29  3:47     ` David Gibson
2026-04-29  5:01       ` David Gibson
2026-05-03 21:56       ` Stefano Brivio
2026-05-04  4:47         ` David Gibson
2026-05-04 23:10           ` Stefano Brivio
2026-05-05 14:24             ` David Gibson
2026-04-21  3:23 ` [PATCH v2 05/13] Makefile: Make conditional definition of $(BIN) clearer David Gibson
2026-04-21  3:23 ` [PATCH v2 06/13] Makefile: Use common binary compilation rule David Gibson
2026-04-21  3:23 ` [PATCH v2 07/13] Makefile: Remove unhelpful $(HEADERS) variable David Gibson
2026-04-21  3:23 ` [PATCH v2 08/13] Makefile: Add header dependencies for secondary binaries David Gibson
2026-04-21  3:23 ` [PATCH v2 09/13] Makefile: Split static checker targets David Gibson
2026-04-21  3:23 ` [PATCH v2 10/13] passt-repair: Split out inotify handling to its own function David Gibson
2026-04-21  3:23 ` [PATCH v2 11/13] passt-repair: Simplify construction of Unix path from inotify David Gibson
2026-04-21  3:23 ` [PATCH v2 12/13] passt-repair: Run static checkers David Gibson
2026-04-21  3:23 ` [PATCH v2 13/13] qrap: " David Gibson
2026-04-28  7:17   ` Stefano Brivio
2026-04-29  3:48     ` David Gibson

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=afr3FMJ8PqK1yCF_@zatzit \
    --to=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
    --cc=passt-dev@passt.top \
    --cc=sbrivio@redhat.com \
    /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).