Instead of the warning-[123] magic, let's accumulate compiler options
to KBUILD_CFLAGS directly as the top Makefile does. I think this makes
it easier to understand what is going on in this file.

This commit slightly changes the behavior, I think all of which are OK.

[1] Currently, cc-option calls are needlessly evaluated. For example,
      warning-3 += $(call cc-option, -Wpacked-bitfield-compat)
    needs evaluating only when W=3, but it is actually evaluated for
    W=1, W=2 as well. With this commit, only relevant cc-option calls
    will be evaluated. This is a slight optimization.

[2] Currently, unsupported level like W=4 is checked by:
      $(error W=$(KBUILD_ENABLE_EXTRA_GCC_CHECKS) is unknown)
    This will no longer be checked, but I do not think it is a big
    deal.

[3] Currently, 4 Clang warnings (Winitializer-overrides, Wformat,
    Wsign-compare, Wformat-zero-length) are shown by any of W=1, W=2,
    and W=3. With this commit, they will be warned only by W=1. I
    think this is a more correct behavior since each warning belongs
    to only one group.

For understanding this commit correctly:

We have 3 warning groups, W=1, W=2, and W=3. You may think W=3 has a
higher level than W=1, but they are actually independent. If you like,
you can combine them like W=13. To enable all the warnings, you can
pass W=123. It is shown by 'make help', but not noticed much. Since we
support W= combination, there should not exist intersection among the
three groups. If we enable Winitializer-overrides for W=1, we do not
need to for W=2 or W=3. This is the reason why I think the change [3]
makes sense.

The documentation says -Winitializer-overrides is enabled by default.
(https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#winitializer-overrides)
We negate it by passing -Wno-initializer-overrides for the normal
build, but we do not do that for W=1. This means, W=1 effectively
enables -Winitializer-overrides by the clang's default. The same for
the other three.

Add comments in case people are confused with the code.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Acked-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>