Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:27:01 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/7] Silence even more W=2 warnings |
| |
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 08:43:17PM +0000, Rustad, Mark D wrote: > Well, please consider the specifics. The entire syscall table is initialized > with a constant pattern to be sure that every item is initialized. Then each > syscall is initialized into its proper place. The compiler is complaining that > entries are being initialized twice. > > Most of the time, that is not done, and so it may catch a patch foulup or > something. In this particular case, it is normal and intended. There is > nothing wrong, so there is no reason to throw a warning for every single > entry in the table. Which is what happens with clang today. > > So the code is correct, but in general the warning can reveal certain issues. > Just not in this particular usage. This happens to be a warning specific to > clang at the moment.
Well, I read this as clang is wrong. It looks like the compiler is unable to understand a perfectly valid usage so it throws a warning. If we go and fix it in the kernel, we'll be wagging the dog, so to speak. Which is a no-no obviously.
> That is why it would be more than reasonable for checkpatch to warn on the > macro introductions. It is certainly a more significant thing than a > line > 80 characters.
No sorry - I don't agree here. So now you're proposing of adding the macros *and* checkpatch to warn about them. That's a really wrong thing to do on so many levels.
...
> Most of the time, it is new instances of warnings that are most likely to > reveal a problem. Hiding them in a flood of "normal" warnings prevents > them from ever being seen. And that is a shame.
Sorry, I can only suggest grepping here and also using what Geert suggested. There's simply no justification IMO to add code to the kernel for solely silencing warnings.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris. --
| |