| Message ID | cover.1587648870.git.congdanhqx@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | fix make sparse warning | expand |
On 23/04/2020 14:47, Đoàn Trần Công Danh wrote: > It's happened that I tried to run make check on project that support autoconf. I try to ignore autoconf as much as possible, so I don't know why people who use it regularly seem to expect a 'make check' target (is that anything to do with ./config.status --recheck?). > Git's Makefile told me to run `make sparse` instead. In which case, you must have had sparse installed, otherwise you would have been directed to 'make test'. [See commit 912f9980d2 ("Makefile: help people who run 'make check' by mistake", 2008-11-11)] The 'check' target was introduced in commit 44c9e8594e ("Fix up header file dependencies and add sparse checking rules", 2005-07-03). As you can see, that target has nothing to do with autoconf/configure. Exactly a year later, support for autoconf tools was added in commit 556677144b ("autoconf: Use autoconf to write installation directories to config.mak.autogen", 2006-07-03). This provides an 'alternative' to just using the Makefile (which is the _primary_ method used to build git). I suspect that the majority of git developers don't use the autoconf tools (I have no numbers, just gut feeling). I added the 'sparse' target in commit 0bcd9ae85d ("sparse: Fix errors due to missing target-specific variables", 2011-04-21). After nine years, we could perhaps just drop the 'check' target altogether? dunno. > I /think/ if we have a rule in Makefile, we should adhere to it. Hmm, do you mean that 'make check' should be _reserved_ for autoconf use? [fun fact: the test target in the sparse Makefile is 'check' :-D ] > I also fix another change in ds/blame-on-bloom, which I think it's worth to > fix, see: <20200423133937.GA1984@danh.dev> Yes, looks good. > This series is developed from latest master. I have some comments on the patches (I'm running out of time here, so I may not get to them till tomorrow). > It's conflicted when merge down next and pu. > > For next, please ignore the conflict with fmt-merge-msg.c and > apply [5/4] instead. > > For pu, reftable.c has too much warnings, I'm too lazy to look into it. For those interested, the 'too much warnings' on the 'pu' branch looks like (for pu@faf094bf11): $ make sparse >psp-out 2>&1 $ diff nsp-out psp-out 154a155 > SP refs/reftable-backend.c 406a408 > SP t/helper/test-proc-receive.c 447a450,511 > SP reftable/basics.c > reftable/basics.c:157:6: warning: symbol 'reftable_malloc_ptr' was not declared. Should it be static? > reftable/basics.c:158:6: warning: symbol 'reftable_realloc_ptr' was not declared. Should it be static? > reftable/basics.c:159:6: warning: symbol 'reftable_free_ptr' was not declared. Should it be static? > SP reftable/block.c > SP reftable/bytes.c > SP reftable/file.c > reftable/file.c:57:37: warning: symbol 'file_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > SP reftable/iter.c > reftable/iter.c:32:33: warning: symbol 'empty_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > reftable/iter.c:61:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/iter.c:69:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/iter.c:96:57: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/iter.c:124:33: warning: symbol 'filtering_ref_iterator_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > reftable/iter.c:224:33: warning: symbol 'indexed_table_ref_iter_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > SP reftable/merged.c > reftable/merged.c:141:33: warning: symbol 'merged_iter_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > reftable/merged.c:283:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/merged.c:296:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > SP reftable/pq.c > SP reftable/reader.c > reftable/reader.c:180:42: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/reader.c:181:42: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/reader.c:284:41: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/reader.c:360:44: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/reader.c:396:33: warning: symbol 'table_iter_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > reftable/reader.c:450:36: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/reader.c:498:42: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/reader.c:500:44: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/reader.c:501:42: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/reader.c:502:36: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/reader.c:565:34: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/reader.c:610:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/reader.c:623:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/reader.c:669:36: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/reader.c:670:42: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/reader.c:671:35: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/reader.c:672:35: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > SP reftable/record.c > reftable/record.c:556:22: warning: symbol 'obj_record_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > reftable/record.c:839:22: warning: symbol 'reftable_log_record_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > reftable/record.c:961:22: warning: symbol 'index_record_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > SP reftable/slice.c > reftable/slice.c:180:37: warning: symbol 'slice_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > reftable/slice.c:200:37: warning: symbol 'malloc_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > reftable/slice.c:204:30: warning: symbol 'malloc_block_source_instance' was not declared. Should it be static? > SP reftable/stack.c > reftable/stack.c:157:62: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/stack.c:667:41: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/stack.c:668:44: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/stack.c:669:44: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/stack.c:1085:41: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/stack.c:1111:41: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > SP reftable/tree.c > SP reftable/writer.c > reftable/writer.c:231:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/writer.c:299:39: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/writer.c:347:47: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/writer.c:426:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/writer.c:468:45: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > reftable/writer.c:584:11: warning: symbol 'debug' was not declared. Should it be static? > SP reftable/zlib-compat.c Also, my static-check perl script says the following symbols are not used outside the file which defines them (so they could be marked static): $ ./static-check.pl >psc $ diff nsc psc 71a72,136 > reftable/basics.o - reftable_free_ptr > reftable/basics.o - reftable_malloc_ptr > reftable/basics.o - reftable_realloc_ptr > reftable/basics.o - reftable_set_alloc > reftable/block.o - block_reader_seek > reftable/block.o - block_writer_register_restart > reftable/file.o - file_vtable > reftable/iter.o - empty_vtable > reftable/iter.o - filtering_ref_iterator_vtable > reftable/iter.o - indexed_table_ref_iter_vtable > reftable/merged.o - merged_iter_vtable > reftable/merged.o - reftable_merged_table_max_update_index > reftable/merged.o - reftable_merged_table_min_update_index > reftable/merged.o - reftable_merged_table_seek_log_at > reftable/pq.o - merged_iter_pqueue_check > reftable/pq.o - pq_less > reftable/reader.o - block_source_close > reftable/reader.o - block_source_read_block > reftable/reader.o - block_source_size > reftable/reader.o - init_reader > reftable/reader.o - reftable_reader_hash_id > reftable/reader.o - reftable_reader_refs_for > reftable/reader.o - reftable_reader_seek_log > reftable/reader.o - reftable_reader_seek_log_at > reftable/reader.o - table_iter_vtable > reftable/record.o - get_var_int > reftable/record.o - index_record_vtable > reftable/record.o - obj_record_vtable > reftable/record.o - put_var_int > reftable/record.o - record_as_log > reftable/record.o - record_as_ref > reftable/record.o - reftable_log_record_equal > reftable/record.o - reftable_log_record_print > reftable/record.o - reftable_log_record_vtable > reftable/record.o - reftable_ref_record_equal > reftable/record.o - reftable_ref_record_print > reftable/record.o - reftable_ref_record_vtable > reftable/slice.o - block_source_from_slice > reftable/slice.o - malloc_block_source_instance > reftable/slice.o - malloc_vtable > reftable/slice.o - slice_equal > reftable/slice.o - slice_vtable > reftable/slice.o - slice_write > reftable/slice.o - slice_write_void > reftable/slice.o - slice_yield > reftable/stack.o - fastlog2 > reftable/stack.o - read_lines > reftable/stack.o - reftable_addition_add > reftable/stack.o - reftable_addition_close > reftable/stack.o - reftable_addition_commit > reftable/stack.o - reftable_stack_auto_compact > reftable/stack.o - reftable_stack_compaction_stats > reftable/stack.o - reftable_stack_destroy > reftable/stack.o - reftable_stack_new_addition > reftable/stack.o - reftable_stack_read_log > reftable/stack.o - reftable_stack_reload > reftable/stack.o - sizes_to_segments > reftable/stack.o - stack_try_add > reftable/stack.o - stack_write_compact > reftable/stack.o - suggest_compaction_segment > reftable/writer.o - debug > reftable/writer.o - writer_clear_index > reftable/writer.o - writer_finish_public_section > reftable/writer.o - writer_flush_block > reftable/writer.o - writer_stats Note: I have not looked at any of the reftable patches/files. ATB, Ramsay Jones
On 2020-04-24 00:10:25+0100, Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com> wrote: > > > On 23/04/2020 14:47, Đoàn Trần Công Danh wrote: > > It's happened that I tried to run make check on project that support autoconf. > > I try to ignore autoconf as much as possible, so I don't know why people For some reason, people refer to autotools as autohell > who use it regularly seem to expect a 'make check' target (is that anything > to do with ./config.status --recheck?). Because it's autotools's recommendation. https://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.69/html_node/Basic-Installation.html#Basic-Installation https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/automake.html#Standard-Targets Yes, Linux kernel, and Git don't like GNU Coding Standards (and me neither, because of their weird bracket position). But, it's reasonable expectation if autotools is used. > > Git's Makefile told me to run `make sparse` instead. > > In which case, you must have had sparse installed, otherwise you would > have been directed to 'make test'. [See commit 912f9980d2 ("Makefile: help > people who run 'make check' by mistake", 2008-11-11)] > > The 'check' target was introduced in commit 44c9e8594e ("Fix up header file > dependencies and add sparse checking rules", 2005-07-03). As you can see, > that target has nothing to do with autoconf/configure. > > Exactly a year later, support for autoconf tools was added in commit > 556677144b ("autoconf: Use autoconf to write installation > directories to config.mak.autogen", 2006-07-03). This provides an > 'alternative' to just > using the Makefile (which is the _primary_ method used to build git). > > I suspect that the majority of git developers don't use the autoconf > tools (I have no numbers, just gut feeling). I also think so. > I added the 'sparse' target in commit 0bcd9ae85d ("sparse: Fix > errors due to missing target-specific variables", 2011-04-21). After > nine years, we could > perhaps just drop the 'check' target altogether? dunno. > > > I /think/ if we have a rule in Makefile, we should adhere to it. > > Hmm, do you mean that 'make check' should be _reserved_ for autoconf use? > [fun fact: the test target in the sparse Makefile is 'check' :-D ] No, I didn't mean that, I just want to fix sparse warning. I don't care much about the target's name, in fact, I prefer `make test` over `make check`. If we don't really care about sparse warning. Let's remove this sparse target. But, I think we do care about some sparse warning that modern compiler stopped caring about, like the one with final_new_line. > > I also fix another change in ds/blame-on-bloom, which I think it's worth to > > fix, see: <20200423133937.GA1984@danh.dev> > > Yes, looks good. > > > This series is developed from latest master. > > I have some comments on the patches (I'm running out of time here, > so I may not get to them till tomorrow). > > > It's conflicted when merge down next and pu. > > > > For next, please ignore the conflict with fmt-merge-msg.c and > > apply [5/4] instead. > > > > For pu, reftable.c has too much warnings, I'm too lazy to look into it. > > For those interested, the 'too much warnings' on the 'pu' branch looks > like (for pu@faf094bf11): > > $ make sparse >psp-out 2>&1 > $ diff nsp-out psp-out > 154a155 > > SP refs/reftable-backend.c > 406a408 > > SP t/helper/test-proc-receive.c > 447a450,511 > > SP reftable/basics.c > > reftable/basics.c:157:6: warning: symbol 'reftable_malloc_ptr' was not declared. Should it be static? > > reftable/basics.c:158:6: warning: symbol 'reftable_realloc_ptr' was not declared. Should it be static? > > reftable/basics.c:159:6: warning: symbol 'reftable_free_ptr' was not declared. Should it be static? > > SP reftable/block.c > > SP reftable/bytes.c > > SP reftable/file.c > > reftable/file.c:57:37: warning: symbol 'file_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > > SP reftable/iter.c > > reftable/iter.c:32:33: warning: symbol 'empty_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > > reftable/iter.c:61:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/iter.c:69:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/iter.c:96:57: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/iter.c:124:33: warning: symbol 'filtering_ref_iterator_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > > reftable/iter.c:224:33: warning: symbol 'indexed_table_ref_iter_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > > SP reftable/merged.c > > reftable/merged.c:141:33: warning: symbol 'merged_iter_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > > reftable/merged.c:283:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/merged.c:296:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > SP reftable/pq.c > > SP reftable/reader.c > > reftable/reader.c:180:42: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/reader.c:181:42: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/reader.c:284:41: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/reader.c:360:44: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/reader.c:396:33: warning: symbol 'table_iter_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > > reftable/reader.c:450:36: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/reader.c:498:42: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/reader.c:500:44: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/reader.c:501:42: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/reader.c:502:36: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/reader.c:565:34: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/reader.c:610:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/reader.c:623:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/reader.c:669:36: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/reader.c:670:42: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/reader.c:671:35: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/reader.c:672:35: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > SP reftable/record.c > > reftable/record.c:556:22: warning: symbol 'obj_record_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > > reftable/record.c:839:22: warning: symbol 'reftable_log_record_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > > reftable/record.c:961:22: warning: symbol 'index_record_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > > SP reftable/slice.c > > reftable/slice.c:180:37: warning: symbol 'slice_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > > reftable/slice.c:200:37: warning: symbol 'malloc_vtable' was not declared. Should it be static? > > reftable/slice.c:204:30: warning: symbol 'malloc_block_source_instance' was not declared. Should it be static? > > SP reftable/stack.c > > reftable/stack.c:157:62: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/stack.c:667:41: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/stack.c:668:44: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/stack.c:669:44: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/stack.c:1085:41: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/stack.c:1111:41: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > SP reftable/tree.c > > SP reftable/writer.c > > reftable/writer.c:231:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/writer.c:299:39: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/writer.c:347:47: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/writer.c:426:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/writer.c:468:45: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer > > reftable/writer.c:584:11: warning: symbol 'debug' was not declared. Should it be static? > > SP reftable/zlib-compat.c > > Also, my static-check perl script says the following symbols are not > used outside the file which defines them (so they could be marked static): All of them are in reftable, and they're catched by `make sparse`, too. > $ ./static-check.pl >psc > $ diff nsc psc > 71a72,136 > > reftable/basics.o - reftable_free_ptr > > reftable/basics.o - reftable_malloc_ptr > > reftable/basics.o - reftable_realloc_ptr > > reftable/basics.o - reftable_set_alloc > > reftable/block.o - block_reader_seek > > reftable/block.o - block_writer_register_restart > > reftable/file.o - file_vtable > > reftable/iter.o - empty_vtable > > reftable/iter.o - filtering_ref_iterator_vtable > > reftable/iter.o - indexed_table_ref_iter_vtable > > reftable/merged.o - merged_iter_vtable > > reftable/merged.o - reftable_merged_table_max_update_index > > reftable/merged.o - reftable_merged_table_min_update_index > > reftable/merged.o - reftable_merged_table_seek_log_at > > reftable/pq.o - merged_iter_pqueue_check > > reftable/pq.o - pq_less > > reftable/reader.o - block_source_close > > reftable/reader.o - block_source_read_block > > reftable/reader.o - block_source_size > > reftable/reader.o - init_reader > > reftable/reader.o - reftable_reader_hash_id > > reftable/reader.o - reftable_reader_refs_for > > reftable/reader.o - reftable_reader_seek_log > > reftable/reader.o - reftable_reader_seek_log_at > > reftable/reader.o - table_iter_vtable > > reftable/record.o - get_var_int > > reftable/record.o - index_record_vtable > > reftable/record.o - obj_record_vtable > > reftable/record.o - put_var_int > > reftable/record.o - record_as_log > > reftable/record.o - record_as_ref > > reftable/record.o - reftable_log_record_equal > > reftable/record.o - reftable_log_record_print > > reftable/record.o - reftable_log_record_vtable > > reftable/record.o - reftable_ref_record_equal > > reftable/record.o - reftable_ref_record_print > > reftable/record.o - reftable_ref_record_vtable > > reftable/slice.o - block_source_from_slice > > reftable/slice.o - malloc_block_source_instance > > reftable/slice.o - malloc_vtable > > reftable/slice.o - slice_equal > > reftable/slice.o - slice_vtable > > reftable/slice.o - slice_write > > reftable/slice.o - slice_write_void > > reftable/slice.o - slice_yield > > reftable/stack.o - fastlog2 > > reftable/stack.o - read_lines > > reftable/stack.o - reftable_addition_add > > reftable/stack.o - reftable_addition_close > > reftable/stack.o - reftable_addition_commit > > reftable/stack.o - reftable_stack_auto_compact > > reftable/stack.o - reftable_stack_compaction_stats > > reftable/stack.o - reftable_stack_destroy > > reftable/stack.o - reftable_stack_new_addition > > reftable/stack.o - reftable_stack_read_log > > reftable/stack.o - reftable_stack_reload > > reftable/stack.o - sizes_to_segments > > reftable/stack.o - stack_try_add > > reftable/stack.o - stack_write_compact > > reftable/stack.o - suggest_compaction_segment > > reftable/writer.o - debug > > reftable/writer.o - writer_clear_index > > reftable/writer.o - writer_finish_public_section > > reftable/writer.o - writer_flush_block > > reftable/writer.o - writer_stats > > Note: I have not looked at any of the reftable patches/files. Me neither.
On 24/04/2020 00:58, Danh Doan wrote: > On 2020-04-24 00:10:25+0100, Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com> wrote: >> On 23/04/2020 14:47, Đoàn Trần Công Danh wrote: >>> It's happened that I tried to run make check on project that support autoconf. >> >> I try to ignore autoconf as much as possible, so I don't know why people > > For some reason, people refer to autotools as autohell > >> who use it regularly seem to expect a 'make check' target (is that anything >> to do with ./config.status --recheck?). > > Because it's autotools's recommendation. > https://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.69/html_node/Basic-Installation.html#Basic-Installation > https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/automake.html#Standard-Targets Ah, OK, that explains alot! :D I have never seen that documented before, so thanks for the reference. Having said that, most all 'autotools' projects I have seen have had an 'make test' target and _not_ 'make check'! (Well, thinking about it, none of those were actual GNU projects - maybe that's the difference). [snip] >> For those interested, the 'too much warnings' on the 'pu' branch looks >> like (for pu@faf094bf11): >> >> $ make sparse >psp-out 2>&1 >> $ diff nsp-out psp-out >> 154a155 >> > SP refs/reftable-backend.c >> 406a408 >> > SP t/helper/test-proc-receive.c >> 447a450,511 >> > SP reftable/basics.c >> > reftable/basics.c:157:6: warning: symbol 'reftable_malloc_ptr' was not declared. Should it be static? >> > reftable/basics.c:158:6: warning: symbol 'reftable_realloc_ptr' was not declared. Should it be static? >> > reftable/basics.c:159:6: warning: symbol 'reftable_free_ptr' was not declared. Should it be static? [snip] >> > SP reftable/writer.c >> > reftable/writer.c:231:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer >> > reftable/writer.c:299:39: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer >> > reftable/writer.c:347:47: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer >> > reftable/writer.c:426:31: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer >> > reftable/writer.c:468:45: warning: Using plain integer as NULL pointer >> > reftable/writer.c:584:11: warning: symbol 'debug' was not declared. Should it be static? >> > SP reftable/zlib-compat.c >> >> Also, my static-check perl script says the following symbols are not >> used outside the file which defines them (so they could be marked static): > > All of them are in reftable, and they're catched by `make sparse`, > too. Yeah, I didn't even look at the output. ;-) However, the output from static-check.pl is usually a super-set of the those from sparse - because sparse is really only looking at the declarations (or lack thereof) in one compilation unit. In contrast, static-check.pl looks at all object files to tie up definitions with use (so across compilation units). (which is also why you have to be careful not to leave stale '*.o' files laying around when switching branches). ATB, Ramsay Jones
Hi Danh, On Thu, 23 Apr 2020, Đoàn Trần Công Danh wrote: > It's happened that I tried to run make check on project that support autoconf. > Git's Makefile told me to run `make sparse` instead. > > I /think/ if we have a rule in Makefile, we should adhere to it. > I also fix another change in ds/blame-on-bloom, which I think it's worth to > fix, see: <20200423133937.GA1984@danh.dev> FWIW there is still an Azure Pipeline building `sparse` for Ubuntu every two weeks: https://dev.azure.com/git/git/_build?definitionId=10&_a=summary I created this Pipeline in order to support the proposed project at https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/345 which is: teach our CI builds to run `make sparse`. Maybe it is time to tackle that? Ciao, Dscho
On 2020-04-25 15:13:53+0200, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Danh, > > On Thu, 23 Apr 2020, Đoàn Trần Công Danh wrote: > > > It's happened that I tried to run make check on project that support autoconf. > > Git's Makefile told me to run `make sparse` instead. > > > > I /think/ if we have a rule in Makefile, we should adhere to it. > > I also fix another change in ds/blame-on-bloom, which I think it's worth to > > fix, see: <20200423133937.GA1984@danh.dev> > > FWIW there is still an Azure Pipeline building `sparse` for Ubuntu every > two weeks: https://dev.azure.com/git/git/_build?definitionId=10&_a=summary > > I created this Pipeline in order to support the proposed project at > https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/345 which is: teach our CI > builds to run `make sparse`. > > Maybe it is time to tackle that? I don't think it's ready, yet! May be it's. But we'll need make sparse | grep -v -e 'plain integer as NULL pointer' \ -e 'redeclared with different type' The first one for: struct foo val = { 0 }; to zero structure. The second one for different in declaration and definition (which is fixed in sparse's master).
On 26/04/2020 04:32, Danh Doan wrote: > On 2020-04-25 15:13:53+0200, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote: >> Hi Danh, >> >> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020, Đoàn Trần Công Danh wrote: >> >>> It's happened that I tried to run make check on project that support autoconf. >>> Git's Makefile told me to run `make sparse` instead. >>> >>> I /think/ if we have a rule in Makefile, we should adhere to it. >>> I also fix another change in ds/blame-on-bloom, which I think it's worth to >>> fix, see: <20200423133937.GA1984@danh.dev> >> >> FWIW there is still an Azure Pipeline building `sparse` for Ubuntu every >> two weeks: https://dev.azure.com/git/git/_build?definitionId=10&_a=summary >> >> I created this Pipeline in order to support the proposed project at >> https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/345 which is: teach our CI >> builds to run `make sparse`. >> >> Maybe it is time to tackle that? > > I don't think it's ready, yet! Heh, not too long ago, the 'master' and 'next' branches were 'sparse clean'. (on non NO_REGEX builds anyway, and even on those for some of us. ;-) ) The 'pu' branch was frequently 'unclean', of course. ATB, Ramsay Jones > > May be it's. > > But we'll need > > make sparse | > grep -v -e 'plain integer as NULL pointer' \ > -e 'redeclared with different type' > > The first one for: > > struct foo val = { 0 }; > > to zero structure. > > The second one for different in declaration and definition (which is > fixed in sparse's master). > >
Hi, On Sun, 26 Apr 2020, Ramsay Jones wrote: > On 26/04/2020 04:32, Danh Doan wrote: > > On 2020-04-25 15:13:53+0200, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote: > >> Hi Danh, > >> > >> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020, Đoàn Trần Công Danh wrote: > >> > >>> It's happened that I tried to run make check on project that support autoconf. > >>> Git's Makefile told me to run `make sparse` instead. > >>> > >>> I /think/ if we have a rule in Makefile, we should adhere to it. > >>> I also fix another change in ds/blame-on-bloom, which I think it's worth to > >>> fix, see: <20200423133937.GA1984@danh.dev> > >> > >> FWIW there is still an Azure Pipeline building `sparse` for Ubuntu every > >> two weeks: https://dev.azure.com/git/git/_build?definitionId=10&_a=summary > >> > >> I created this Pipeline in order to support the proposed project at > >> https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/345 which is: teach our CI > >> builds to run `make sparse`. > >> > >> Maybe it is time to tackle that? > > > > I don't think it's ready, yet! > > Heh, not too long ago, the 'master' and 'next' branches were 'sparse clean'. > (on non NO_REGEX builds anyway, and even on those for some of us. ;-) ) Maybe we should spend the time to make it "sparse clean" again. Of course, that would mean that reftables would have a ton of work in front of it (not that it does already...). > The 'pu' branch was frequently 'unclean', of course. But mostly because there was no automated job to tell contributors about it. Ciao, Dscho > > ATB, > Ramsay Jones > > > > > May be it's. > > > > But we'll need > > > > make sparse | > > grep -v -e 'plain integer as NULL pointer' \ > > -e 'redeclared with different type' > > > > The first one for: > > > > struct foo val = { 0 }; > > > > to zero structure. > > > > The second one for different in declaration and definition (which is > > fixed in sparse's master). > > > > >