On 2016.07.28 at 10:46 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:29:15AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > BUT, isn't this the natural state of things, that the 'final' warnings > > that don't get fixed are the obnoxious, false positive ones - because > > anyone who looks at them will say "oh crap, idiotic compiler!"? > > Hmm, so my experience is like Linus' - that -Wmaybe thing generates too > much noise and a lot of false positives. The thing is, as Micha (on CC) > explained it to me, that warning simply says that GCC sometimes *cannot* > know whether the variable will be used uninitialized or not and eagerly > issues the warning message, just in case. Another issue is that the number of warnings you get depend on the optimization level. So -Os may be different from -O2 and once you use -O3 (I know it is not officially supported) you will drown in false positives... -- Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
