lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 05 Oct 2006 06:05:16 -0400
FromJeff Garzik <>
SubjectRe: make-bogus-warnings-go-away tree [was: 2.6.18-mm3]
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> A small suggestion: to give GCC folks a chance to actually fix this, 
> could we actively annotate these places instead of working them around?


There was a patch posted in the past, mentioned in the thread discussed 
my #gccbug branch, that permitted annotations with zero code size 
changes.  I think that sort of annotation approach would be preferred. 
It was something like

#define noinit_warning(x) \
	do { (void) (x) = (x); } while (0)
but given my memory, that's probably all wrong.

So, I agree that annotations are a good idea, but I'm not so sure that 
your proposed "= 0" approach is the best one.  Remember, we need to do 
this for multi-member structures, integers, and pointers, not just 
things easily assigned to zero.

	Jeff


-
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: 2006-10-05 12:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2008