Alex Chiang wrote: > * Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> Alex Chiang wrote: >>> Shuts up gcc-3.4.5-glibc-2.3.6 when it complains of: >>> >>> drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c: In function `ata_scsi_scan_host': >>> drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c:3225: warning: 'dev' might be used >>> uninitialized in this function >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alex Chiang <achiang@xxxxxx> >> Nacked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Some gcc versions complain about sata_via, others complain >> about something else. Some versions complain about some >> iterator usages while not complaining about others, but none of >> those complaints is actually wrong or dangerous. I don't think >> adding = NULL whenever some version of gcc complains is the >> right approach. > > Hm, ok. > > I guess we don't want to sprinkle these around all over the place > just to solve cosmetic issues, which makes sense, but is there > some other approach we could take instead? Any suggestions? Or > just live with it? I think the current policy is blaming gcc but I also added quite a few bogus NULL initializations here and there and caught several bugs thanks to those warnings. We can think about adding an additional annotation with leading double underbars which indicate that certain pointer arguments to functions expect (or are okay with) pointers to uninitialized variables which should be able to remove many of those spurious warnings (on the caller side, the compiler can ignore the warning and on the callee side the compiler can check whether it's being dereferenced without being written to). Does anyone know whether gcc already has that type of annotation? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
