Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH -mm] sys_semctl gcc 4.1 warning fix | From | Daniel Walker <> | Date | Wed, 10 May 2006 14:45:54 -0700 |
| |
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 22:39 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:33:42PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > Consider the following scenario: > > > > > > 1) gcc gives false positive > > > 2) tosser on a rampage "fixes" it > > > 3) code is chaged a month later > > > 4) a real bug is introduced - one that would be _really_ visible to gcc, > > > with "is used" in a warning > > > 5) thanks to aforementioned tosser, that bug remains hidden. > > > > I don't really see anything new here .. The same sort of stuff can > > happen in any code considered for inclusion .. That's what the review > > process is for . > > > > Real errors can be covered up any number of way .. > > One last time: your kind of patches actually increases the odds of new bug > staying unnoticed.
Your using kind of a broad brush .. What do you mean "your kind of patches" ?
> If you really fill the urge to pull a Bunk, do it somewhere else, please - > the real thing is already more than sufficiently annoying.
Huh ?
Daniel
- 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/
| |