To: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, akpm@osdl.org, dwalker@mvista.com,
       alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] sys_semctl gcc 4.1 warning fix
References: <20060510162106.GC27946@ftp.linux.org.uk>
	<20060510150321.11262b24.akpm@osdl.org>
	<20060510221024.GH27946@ftp.linux.org.uk>
	<20060510.153129.122741274.davem@davemloft.net>
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 16:06:51 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20060510.153129.122741274.davem@davemloft.net> (David S. Miller's message of "Wed, 10 May 2006 15:31:29 -0700 (PDT)")
Message-ID: <adaody55vjo.fsf@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.18 (linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 886
Lines: 19

    David> IMHO, the tree should build with -Werror without exception.
    David> Once you have that basis, new ones will not show up easily
    David> and the hard part of the battle has been won.

It's a great goal, but which gcc version and architecture do you
declare has to build the kernel with -Werror?  Every gcc version and
platform produces a different set of warnings.  And what do you do
when all released versions of gcc produce a false positive warning?

The problem is that fixing false positive warnings often leads people
to write unnatural code that may hide future bugs (and in fact may be
buggy even when written).

 - R.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/