On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Myles Watson mylesgw@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Jordan Crouse jordan@cosmicpenguin.net wrote:
Myles Watson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger < c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net> wrote:
Bao, Zheng found a bug which killed SATA booting on my board.
This happened because we do not error out on implicit function declarations. The linker has no way of checking whether the implicitly assumed function signature is identical to the real signature, so mismatches can occur and these mismatches are practically impossible to debug because the code looks completely correct.
Adding -Werror-implicit-function-declaration to our CFLAGS would solve this problem nicely, but a lot of files in the tree need to be fixed.
I think this is a great idea. Isn't the correct order to fix all the warnings, then make it an error?
Yeah - the unfortunate thing about changes like this is that you end up being responsible for fixing the errors.. :)
Here's my first patch. It clears up all of them except get_nodes for serengeti.
coreboot/svn/src/cpu/amd/dualcore/dualcore.c:63: warning: implicit declaration of function 'get_nodes'
The rest were easy. This one I'm not sure what was supposed to be here.
Carl-Daniel - if you post a list of offending files, we'll all help clear them up. Dumping the log through grep "implicit declaration of function" should suffice.
If you want to take the get_nodes reference, that would be great. If this is the way its supposed to be cleaned up, I'll keep going a little more. I think we should divide it up based on processor type so we don't duplicate work.
Signed-off-by: Myles Watson mylesgw@gmail.com
Acked-by: Marc Jones marcj303@gmail.com
This is a much needed cleanup. Thanks Carl-Daniel and Myles for starting on it. I think that the get_node is a little tricky because it is used in CAR and in main coreboot code?
Marc