[Swan-dev] odd error only on ppc64 on rhel6
D. Hugh Redelmeier
hugh at mimosa.com
Mon Jun 17 06:08:40 UTC 2019
| From: Antony Antony <antony at phenome.org>
| which flag do you mean? the actual flag seems to be lost? Atleast I can't
| find it.
The problem is that the mail was private. But not for any good
reason. At my urging, it became public halfway through. Confusing.
| There was an earlier discussion
| As re-collect you wrote "-Wno-missing-field-initializers" is not a good
That was about mk/docker.mk. As far as I understand that's not
involved with our problem (based soley on its filename).
I was trying to say that we don't want -Wmissing-field-initializers
(in this case).
In the split thread, I'm trying to say that we DO want
This is a flag with the opposite meaning.
I will note that Tuomo recommended this same flag on the mailing list 2018
November 16. I'm sad that I had to rediscover this flag. Somebody should
have checked it into our tree back then.
| It is in docker-targets.mk, which is used by travis testing make scripts.
| I think, I added it to compile on CentOS6 and I didn't really understand
| what I am doing:) However, CentOS is broken 
The flag -Wmissing-field-initializers can only cause failures. It won't
fix failures. That would be good if the missing initializer were a
mistake. But we intentionally write code with missing initializers.
(I will admit that, in some cases, missing initializers are a bug.)
-Wno-missing-field-initializers can only suppress failures, it won't
| We have travis that compile #master on various distributions.
| The scripts and hooks to compile on various distributions, on your own
| server are in the master.
| I guess a better writeup about this would be nicer! Currently it is hidden
| in docker test suite documentation, only semi automized.
Better documentation is always a Good Idea. Then comes convincing
people to read it.
| I am curious about initializer issue because it has been taking too much
| time from me. My guess is other people on the list are also confused about
| it. May be one alternative is we decie not to support CentOS6?
This is a solved problem since last November. Too bad we didn't adopt
| PS: googling about -Wno-missing-field-initializers pointed me to 1998
| references, see the links in the second message on this thread.
Yeah. I included that link in the pointlessly private part of this
| Paul: the initializer issue is not a one line change. Once you fix the one
| you noticed, more warnings like that will show up.
That's what I guessed. But I didn't know that I had tools with which to
test for it and assumed those with the problem would do the legwork.
| /home/build/libreswan/lib/libswan/addr_lookup.c:67:6: error: implicit declaration of function 'printf' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
| printf("found peer %s to interface %s\n",
1) this probably deserves its own thread. It may not be noticed at the
bottom of an unrelated message.
2) I just did
and did not observe this. Perhaps it is fixed?
More information about the Swan-dev