xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs: v3.2.0 released!

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Adam Sampson <ats@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfsprogs: v3.2.0 released!
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 20:01:11 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140517002309.GA18954@dastard>
References: <20140516055650.GF26353@dastard> <y2a8uq11g5k.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140517002309.GA18954@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
On 5/16/14, 7:23 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 12:02:15AM +0100, Adam Sampson wrote:
>> Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> It is my pleasure to announce the release of v3.2.0 of the xfsprogs
>>> package.
>>
>> If this is built with DEBUG= (i.e. not defaulting to DEBUG=-NDEBUG),
>> several source files fail to compile -- it looks like there are a number
>> of assertions that haven't been updated for changes in the code:
> 
> Can't say I've ever built xfsprogs with "DEBUG=". I'm not sure
> there's really any benefit in doing so - it's preferable to have
> things like xfs_repair abort when it comes across an inconsistency
> it can't handle than to continue blindly along and making a bigger
> mess of the filesystem it's supposed to be fixing...
> 
> Anyway, we'll look to fix it for 3.2.1.

-NDEBUG is only default for libxfs/ AFAIK:

# grep -B1 NDEBUG libxfs/Makefile 
# don't try linking xfs_repair with a debug libxfs.
DEBUG = -DNDEBUG

For everything else, default should be -DDEBUG:

configure:    DEBUG=${DEBUG:-'-DDEBUG'}             debug_build="$DEBUG"

so default is -DDEBUG for everything except libxfs, with -NDEBUG;
I'm not sure what '' does - break, apparently.  Seems like maybe just
a bit of a makefile mess and maybe old crufty code.
Patches accepted and all that.  :)

But maybe it's time to remove it as an option, and just DTRT everywhere.

>> (Errors from current Git, built with GCC 4.9. You also get a good crop
>> of warnings if you build it with clang 3.4.1's scan-build, which'd be
>> worth checking out in case there's anything serious there.)
> 
> ISTR that was done recently by Eric, and I've run clang recently,
> too.

Some, yeah.  I don't claim to have gotten it all cleaned up yet,
though.  We also keep track of what Coverity finds, chipping away
at a backlog of potential defects...

Thanks for the report, though, there's always more to do...

-Eric

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>