On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:12:47 +0200 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Mauro, > > On Monday 20 April 2009 19:50:31 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:25:00 +0200 > > > > Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Alexey, > > > > > > On Sunday 19 April 2009 22:03:09 Alexey Klimov wrote: > > > > Hello, all > > > > I saw warnings in v4l-dvb daily build. > > > > May this patch be helpful? > > > > > > I can't reproduce the problem with gcc 4.3.2. > > > > > > Hans, what's the policy for fixing gcc-related issues ? Should the code > > > use uninitialized_var() to make every gcc version happy, or can ignore > > > the warnings when a newer gcc version fixes the problem > > > > Laurent, > > > > The kernel way is to use unitialized_var() on such cases. > > > > Personally, I don't like very much this approach, since it will get rid > > forever of such error for that var. However, a future patch could make that > > var truly uninitialized. So, an extra care should be taken on every patch > > touching a var that uses uninitialized_var() macro. > > > > From my side, I accept patches with both ways to fix it. > > I wasn't talking about ' = 0' vs. 'uninitialized_var()', but rather about > submitting a patch vs. considering the problem fixed because gcc 4.3.2 doesn't > spit a warning while gcc 4.3.1 does. Since 4.3.1 is a supported gcc version, it is better to fix the warning for it. Cheers, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
