Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 May 2006 22:20:58 +0100 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -mm] sys_semctl gcc 4.1 warning fix |
| |
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:11:54PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > I really don't see why it couldn't be added. What's the problem with it? > > > > I mean, I see lots of advantages, and really no disadvantages.
Your vision is quite selective, then.
> We are in complete agreement .. The only disadvantage is maybe we cover > up and real error
... which is more than enough to veto it. However, that is not all. Consider the following scenario:
1) gcc gives false positive 2) tosser on a rampage "fixes" it 3) code is chaged a month later 4) a real bug is introduced - one that would be _really_ visible to gcc, with "is used" in a warning 5) thanks to aforementioned tosser, that bug remains hidden.
And that's besides making code uglier for no good reason, etc.
Consider that preemptively NAKed. - 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/
| |