[ntp:hackers] Patches for stricter compiler settings?

Harlan Stenn stenn at ntp.org
Mon Nov 30 06:38:56 UTC 2015


Hi Havard,

Please open a report at https://bugs.ntp.org and attach your patches
there.

If you prefer, you can also use our github repo and make a pull request.

My preference is the bug report, as that way we'll be able to
communicate with you easier, if needed.

Thanks!

H
---
Havard Eidnes writes:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm a NetBSD developer.  NetBSD has in their source tree maintained
> patches to ntp to allow it to be built with stricter warning flags
> (when building with gcc) than the default.
> 
> While I'm not the one who imports new versions of ntp into NetBSD, I
> would like to help both ends by trying to get most if not all of the
> changes adopted upstream, i.e. here, so that integration of future
> versions become easier.
> 
> However, if you don't also adopt the use of some or all of these
> additional warning flags, I can more or less guarantee that problems
> in this area will continue to pop up, so I'm arguing that you should
> also adopt some or preferably all of the additional warning flags
> we're building with.
> 
> At least ignoring some these warning flags can be the source of
> security problems, while others of them are perhaps more related to
> strict adherence to standards.
> 
> The warning flags we're building ntp with are (as far as I can see):
> 
> -Wall
> -Werror
> -Wstrict-prototypes
> -Wmissing-prototypes
> -Wpointer-arith
> -Wno-traditional
> -Wreturn-type
> -Wswitch
> -Wshadow
> -Wcast-qual
> -Wwrite-strings
> -Wextra
> -Wno-unused-parameter
> -Wsign-compare
> -Wformat=3D2
> -Wno-format-zero-length
> -Wno-missing-noreturn
> 
> Now, I'm wondering what the best way is to feed back these
> changes, and whether they have a chance of being adopted?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> - H=E5vard
> _______________________________________________
> hackers mailing list
> hackers at lists.ntp.org
> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/hackers
> 


More information about the hackers mailing list