On 07/18/2014 12:57 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> This particular warning is IMO in a particularly dumb category: GCC
> optimizes some code and then warns about a construct that wasn't there
> in the original code. In this case, I think it unrolled a loop and
> discovered that one iteration contained a test that was always true.
> Big deal.
>
> (OTOH, the code in question was buggy, but not all for the reason that
> GCC thought it was.)
>
if (syms[sym_vvar_start] > syms[i] + 4096)
fail("%s underruns begin_vvar\n",
required_syms[i].name);
if i == sym_vvar_start then this is at least a valid warning. It could
easily be quieted by chaning syms[] to an unsigned array.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
