From: Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:52:07 +0200 > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:32:11 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote: >> From: Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:53:24 +0200 >> >> > I fear somebody else will have to do that. I personally think >> > uninitialized_var() should not have been invented, I don't want to have >> > my name associated with any of its uses for it will inevitably lead to >> > bugs in the future. >> > >> > I'll resubmit a patch not fixing the warning (because the rest is still >> > useful I think) but that's about all I can offer. >> >> The alternative will be that someone will ask "when does the '0' case >> get used" and have to sort through that and potentially ask people >> here on the lists. > > The comment I added, /* Silent compiler warning */, should have > answered this question pretty clearly, methinks. Yet the uninitialzed_var() tag was created to indicate this tree-wide. A convention for the entire tree. You can try to fight city hall with your protest, but I suspect biting off one's nose to spite one's face is not profitable in the end. >> But you posted and update patch which solves the problem in an >> even nicer way :-) > > Is it enough to silent the warning for you? I wasn't for me (gcc > 4.3.2), although I expected it to... gcc should be able to see there is > no code path leading to the variable being used uninitialized. I didn't check, I suspected that you rewrote the patch this way because it did kill the warning for you. Guess not. I'll be the pragmatist and add the uninitialized_var() myself, and will not for posterity your continued support of "the anti- uninitialized_var() cause" :-) -- 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
