lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: make-bogus-warnings-go-away tree [was: 2.6.18-mm3]
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> A small suggestion: to give GCC folks a chance to actually fix this,
> could we actively annotate these places instead of working them around?


There was a patch posted in the past, mentioned in the thread discussed
my #gccbug branch, that permitted annotations with zero code size
changes. I think that sort of annotation approach would be preferred.
It was something like

#define noinit_warning(x) \
do { (void) (x) = (x); } while (0)

but given my memory, that's probably all wrong.

So, I agree that annotations are a good idea, but I'm not so sure that
your proposed "= 0" approach is the best one. Remember, we need to do
this for multi-member structures, integers, and pointers, not just
things easily assigned to zero.

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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-10-05 12:07    [W:0.168 / U:0.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site