[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    SubjectRe: [announce] new tree: "fix all build warnings, on all configs"
     > the drivers/net/mlx4/mcg.c commit you pointed out is one of the very few 
    > borderline cases: the code gets neither better, nor worse.

    Yes, I agree exactly. As long as there are not too many such cases
    (since every commit has some cost just from causing churn) then we are
    OK, I think.

    > If you look at the totality of fixes they are not common at all. (and
    > almost by definition the 100-200 unfixed warnings that we have piled
    > up in -git are the _problematic_ cases - clear-cut cases tend to be
    > fixed.)

    Yes, and I think that merging such changes makes the most sense as part
    of a project such as yours that wants to kill all warnings. I looked at
    the mcg.c warning and found the same workaround, but in the context of
    my maintenance work, I just reported the gcc bug and lived with the
    warning when using gcc 4.3.

    By the way, just out of curiousity, how are you dealing with warnings
    about "format not a string literal and no format arguments" caused by
    code like arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_64.c:

    static void print_trace_address(void *data, unsigned long addr, int reliable)
    printk_address(addr, reliable);

    and also cases like:

    char *name;


    kobject_set_name(obj, name);

    (I get these with gcc "(Ubuntu 4.3.2-1ubuntu10) 4.3.2")

    > i certainly have a found a couple of such cases, see tip/warnings/ugly -
    > for example see the one below where gcc is not able to see through type
    > width.

    Yes, the uninitialized variable warnings are obnoxious too. By the way,
    I think this:

    @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ static __always_inline void *__constant_memcpy(void *to, const void *from,
    return to;
    case 5:
    *(int *)to = *(int *)from;
    - *((char *)to + 4) = *((char *)from + 4);
    + *((short *)to + 3) = *((short *)from + 3);
    return to;
    case 6:
    *(int *)to = *(int *)from;
    is actually *wrong*, because the cast operator binds tighter than
    addition -- so

    + *((short *)to + 3) = *((short *)from + 3);

    actually copies bytes at offset 6 and 7; I think what you intended was:

    + *((short *)(to + 3)) = *((short *)(from + 3));

    which illustrates the risks in fixing warnings.

    - R.

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-17 21:39    [W:0.038 / U:13.500 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site