[00/10] Building the sim/ tree with clang

Message ID cover.1666192979.git.aburgess@redhat.com
Headers
Series Building the sim/ tree with clang |

Message

Andrew Burgess Oct. 19, 2022, 3:24 p.m. UTC
  The goal of this series is to allow the simulator tree to build using
clang.

The first 9 patches resolve some minor build warnings.

The last patch is where I give up (for now), and disable -Werror for 3
simulators which I think are going to be trickier to fix.

---

Andrew Burgess (10):
  sim/sh: use fabs instead of abs
  sim/ppc: don't try to print an uninitialized variable
  sim/ppc: initialize a memory buffer in all cases
  sim/ppc: don't pass uninitialized value to semctl for GETVAL calls
  sim/ppc: fix for operator precedence warning from clang
  sim/aarch64: remove two unused functions
  sim/rx: delete an unused function
  sim/h8300: avoid self assignment
  sim/lm32: fix some missing function declaration warnings
  sim/cris/m32c/sh: disable use of -Werror

 sim/aarch64/simulator.c | 16 ----------------
 sim/cris/Makefile.in    |  3 +++
 sim/h8300/compile.c     |  4 ++--
 sim/lm32/Makefile.in    |  3 ---
 sim/lm32/cpu.h          | 11 +++++++++++
 sim/lm32/dv-lm32cpu.c   |  3 +++
 sim/lm32/user.c         |  3 +++
 sim/m32c/Makefile.in    |  3 +++
 sim/ppc/altivec.igen    |  2 +-
 sim/ppc/emul_netbsd.c   |  2 ++
 sim/ppc/hw_sem.c        |  4 ++--
 sim/ppc/sim_calls.c     |  5 +++--
 sim/rx/rx.c             |  8 --------
 sim/sh/Makefile.in      |  3 +++
 sim/sh/interp.c         |  2 +-
 15 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
  

Comments

Tom Tromey Oct. 20, 2022, 6:36 p.m. UTC | #1
>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:

Andrew> The goal of this series is to allow the simulator tree to build using
Andrew> clang.

Andrew> The first 9 patches resolve some minor build warnings.

Andrew> The last patch is where I give up (for now), and disable -Werror for 3
Andrew> simulators which I think are going to be trickier to fix.

I can't really comment on patch #9, but otherwise these all looked fine
to me.  Thanks for doing this.

Tom