On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:58:11 -0400 Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:47:45 -0400 Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Andrew Morton wrote: > >>> The modern way of shutting up gcc is uninitialized_var(). > >> > >> Should I convert my misc-2.6.git#gccbug repository over to this, and > >> push upstream? > > > > Opinions differ (a bit) but personally I think the benefit of fixing the > > warnings outweighs the risk that these suppressions will later hide a real > > bug. > > Tooting my own horn, but, anything in #gccbug I consider to be verified > to -not- be hiding a real bug. Human-verified not machine-verified, of > course, so it's imperfect. But at least it's been reviewed and > considered carefully. Yup, but the concern (from Al, iirc) was that someone could change the code later on, add a new bug and have that bug hidden by the unneeded initialisation. > I'll look into "tarting up" #gccbug for upstream... I had missed the > introduction of uninitialized_var(), which was the genesis for this line > of questioning. uninitialized_var() has the advantage that it generates no code, whereas "= 0" often adds instructions. Plus of course it is self-documenting, greppable-for and centrally alterable. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
