Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Roland Dreier <> | Subject | Re: [announce] new tree: "fix all build warnings, on all configs" | Date | Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:36:54 -0700 |
| |
> the drivers/net/mlx4/mcg.c commit you pointed out is one of the very few > borderline cases: the code gets neither better, nor worse.
Yes, I agree exactly. As long as there are not too many such cases (since every commit has some cost just from causing churn) then we are OK, I think.
> If you look at the totality of fixes they are not common at all. (and > almost by definition the 100-200 unfixed warnings that we have piled > up in -git are the _problematic_ cases - clear-cut cases tend to be > fixed.)
Yes, and I think that merging such changes makes the most sense as part of a project such as yours that wants to kill all warnings. I looked at the mcg.c warning and found the same workaround, but in the context of my maintenance work, I just reported the gcc bug and lived with the warning when using gcc 4.3.
By the way, just out of curiousity, how are you dealing with warnings about "format not a string literal and no format arguments" caused by code like arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_64.c:
static void print_trace_address(void *data, unsigned long addr, int reliable) { touch_nmi_watchdog(); printk(data); printk_address(addr, reliable); }
and also cases like:
char *name;
//...
kobject_set_name(obj, name);
(I get these with gcc "(Ubuntu 4.3.2-1ubuntu10) 4.3.2")
> i certainly have a found a couple of such cases, see tip/warnings/ugly - > for example see the one below where gcc is not able to see through type > width.
Yes, the uninitialized variable warnings are obnoxious too. By the way, I think this:
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static __always_inline void *__constant_memcpy(void *to, const void *from, return to; case 5: *(int *)to = *(int *)from; - *((char *)to + 4) = *((char *)from + 4); + *((short *)to + 3) = *((short *)from + 3); return to; case 6: *(int *)to = *(int *)from; is actually *wrong*, because the cast operator binds tighter than addition -- so
+ *((short *)to + 3) = *((short *)from + 3);
actually copies bytes at offset 6 and 7; I think what you intended was:
+ *((short *)(to + 3)) = *((short *)(from + 3));
which illustrates the risks in fixing warnings.
- R.
| |