[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] lib: zlib_inflate "r.base" uninitialized compile warnings
On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 06:34:06PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> NAK. That sort of patches is only going to hide real problems in the
> code where such warnings are _not_ false positives.
> Let me put it that way: what bug are you fixing in that patch? Is
> there a codepath that would lead to use of r without initialization?
> If there is - show it; if there is not - why are you patching kernel
> and not gcc?

Well, good point. My only question would be: why are other
"uninitialized" variables masked in the same way in that code?

Also, perhaps the phrasing in SubmittingPatches should be changed.
Currently (for "trivial" patches) it says:

Warning fixes (cluttering with useless warnings is bad)

Is that warning considered "useful"? Should this hint, instead, read:

Warning fixes (make sure the warning is "real", if not, patch gcc)


Kees Cook
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-12-25 21:41    [W:0.121 / U:0.000 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site