Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] fix make sparse warning

From: Danh Doan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 06:58:09 +0700

On 2020-04-24 00:10:25+0100, Ramsay Jones <[email-masked]> 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: <[email-masked]>
> 
> 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.

-- 
Danh