![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 07:59:54AM +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote: > And on an philosophical plane, can/should we put that responsibility onto > the compiler? Is it not "easier" to make the functions take care > of its own duties (like the *nix-way) and make the bvec_alloc_bs initialize > idx (even if it has to be an error-value)? > > I'm thinking something like this. Seems alright? No. Working around the false positives in compiler warning system is *wrong*. _IF_ it cares to inline the function and generate the warnings based on that, it is responsible for doing it right. It's a gcc bug, plain and simple. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-10-29 04:06 [W:0.199 / U:0.130 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||