On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 06:48:43PM +0000, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> > I'm OK with this, if it's the direction we want to go. But I thought the
> > discussion kind of ended as "we do not care about these warnings on
> > ancient versions of gcc; those people should use -Wno-error=uninitialized".
>
> Hmm, I don't recall any agreement or conclusions being reached.
> I guess I missed that!
I think Jonathan said that and nobody disagreed, and I took it as a
conclusion.
> Hmm, so are you saying that this patch is not acceptable because
> I used a compiler that is no longer supported?
No, I just think we should come to a decision on how unreadable to make
the code in order to suppress incorrect warnings on old compilers. I can
see the point in either of the following arguments:
1. These compilers are old, and we do not need to cater to them in the
code because people can just _not_ set -Werror=uninitialized (or
its equivalent). It is still worth catering to bugs in modern
compilers that most devs use, because being able to set -Werror is
helpful.
2. The code is not made significantly less readable, especially if you
put in a comment, so why not help these compilers.
When we can make the code more readable _and_ help the compiler, I think
it is a no-brainer. I am on the fence otherwise and don't care that
much. I just think we should apply the rule consistently.
-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html