interpreters/python: Avoid warnings that could be treated as errors

[tmedicci]

Summary

• interpreters/python: Avoid warnings that could be treated as errors and prevent CI from failing when EXTRAFLAGS="-Wno-cpp -Werror" is set.

Please check the discussion at apache/nuttx#15099 (comment)

Impact

Avoid CI failing when EXTRAFLAGS="-Wno-cpp -Werror" is set

Testing

Internal CI testing + test with CI's docker image according to apache/nuttx#14601 (comment):

sudo docker run -it nuttx ghcr.io/apache/nuttx/apache-nuttx-ci-linux:latest \       
  /bin/bash -c "
  cd ;
  pwd ;
  git clone https://github.com/tmedicci/incubator-nuttx --branch feature/python nuttx;
  git clone https://github.com/tmedicci/incubator-nuttx-apps --branch improvement/python_gcc_warnings apps ;
  pushd nuttx ; echo NuttX Source: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/tree/\$(git rev-parse HEAD) ; popd ;
  pushd apps  ; echo NuttX Apps: https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/tree/\$(git rev-parse HEAD) ; popd ;
  cd nuttx/tools/ci ;
  (./cibuild.sh -c -A -N -R testlist/risc-v-06.dat || echo '***** BUILD FAILED') ;
"

[nuttxpr]

[Experimental Bot, please feedback here]

Yes, this PR appears to meet the NuttX requirements, although it could be improved.

Strengths:

• Clear Summary: The summary explains the "why," "what," and "how" of the change. Referencing the related discussion is helpful.
• Impact is Addressed: The impact section highlights the primary benefit (preventing CI failures). While it focuses on the build, it implies the broader impact of improving CI stability.
• Testing Provided: The testing section includes the build hosts (implicitly Docker/Linux) and targets (RISC-V). The commands to reproduce the testing are a significant plus.

Areas for Improvement:

• Impact Specificity: While the impact on the build is mentioned, explicitly stating "NO" or "YES" for each impact category (user, hardware, documentation, security, compatibility) would improve clarity and completeness. Even if the answer is "NO," stating it explicitly avoids ambiguity.
• Testing Logs Missing: The testing section mentions "Testing logs before change" and "Testing logs after change," but the code blocks are empty. Including actual logs demonstrating the issue before the change and the successful resolution after the change is crucial.
• Target Specificity: The target description is a bit vague ("RISC-V"). Specifying the specific RISC-V configuration (e.g., qemu-rv32ima) would be beneficial.

Recommendation:

Populate the missing log sections with actual output. Explicitly address all impact categories, even if the answer is "NO." Clarify the target architecture/board/configuration. These improvements will make the PR easier to review and increase confidence in the change.