On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > drivers/md/dm-exception-store.c: In function ‘persistent_read_metadata’:
> > drivers/md/dm-exception-store.c:452: warning: ‘new_snapshot’ may be used
> > uninitialized in this function
> >
> > drivers/md/dm-ioctl.c: In function ‘ctl_ioctl’:
> > drivers/md/dm-ioctl.c:1407: warning: ‘param’ may be used uninitialized in
> > this function
> >
> > [ For these, I'd like to especially add -- shame on you, gcc! ]
> >
> > drivers/md/dm-table.c: In function ‘dm_get_device’:
> > drivers/md/dm-table.c:472: warning: ‘dev’ may be used uninitialized in this
> > function
> >
> > are all verified to be bogus warnings. Let's shut them up.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/md/dm-exception-store.c | 3 ++-
> > drivers/md/dm-ioctl.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/md/dm-table.c | 2 +-
> > 3 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletion(-)
>
> same comment as with the last uninit'd var patch: these markers should be
> used sparingly. Try it on multiple compiler versions, see if it's a new
> behavior.
>
> Quite realistically, you might actually be finding gcc bugs,
Definitely -- a lot of these patches are purely a result of gcc's shoddy
inadequacies. I do intend filing reports with gcc, however ...
> implying the
> proper path is to file a gcc bug report (and they are _very_ diligent about
> handling these, its impressive) rather than to patch the Linux kernel.
My experience (regarding gcc's diligence in dealing with bug reports) has
been otherwise :-)
Anyway, I once had a _very_ similar discussion with Andrew (regarding some
other gcc bug) previously, and the (completely correct) point he made was
that: firstly, there's no guarantee they'll get this sorted out asap, and
even if they did, we'll still not be dropping support for older gcc
versions anyway ...
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
