Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:45:28 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: Announce: gcc bogus warning repository |
| |
Daniel Walker wrote: > On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 14:16 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Andrew Morton wrote: >>> The downsides are that it muckies up the source a little and introduces a >>> very small risk that real use-uninitialised bugs will be hidden. But I >>> believe the benefit outweighs those disadvantages. >> How about just marking the ones I've already done in #gccbug? >> >> If I'm taking the time to audit the code, and separate out bogosities >> from real bugs, it would be nice not to see that effort wasted. > > There was a long thread on this, it's not about anyone not reviewing the > code properly when the warning is first silenced. It's that future > changes might create new problems that are also silenced. I don't think > it's a huge concern, especially since there's was a config option to > turn the warning backs on.
That doesn't address my question at all.
If there is no difference between real non-init bugs and bogus warnings, then a config option doesn't make any difference at all, does it? Real bugs are still hidden either way: if the warnings are turned on, the bugs are lost in the noise. if the warnings are turned off, the bugs are completely hidden.
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/
| |