To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: make-bogus-warnings-go-away tree
References: <20061003001115.e898b8cb.akpm@osdl.org>
	<20061005083754.GA1060@elte.hu> <4524D8DC.1080100@garzik.org>
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:21:10 -0700
In-Reply-To: <4524D8DC.1080100@garzik.org> (Jeff Garzik's message of "Thu, 05 Oct 2006 06:05:16 -0400")
Message-ID: <adawt7elond.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: 1152
Lines: 25

    Jeff> So, I agree that annotations are a good idea, but I'm not so
    Jeff> sure that your proposed "= 0" approach is the best one.
    Jeff> Remember, we need to do this for multi-member structures,
    Jeff> integers, and pointers, not just things easily assigned to
    Jeff> zero.

Not to mention the fact that "foo = 0" generates extra (probably
unnecessary) code to initialize foo, while "foo = foo" just shuts up
the gcc warning without affecting generated code.

I'm already somewhat unconfortable shutting up these gcc warnings at
all, since adding these annotations add one more thing that must be
maintained -- I feel it would be all-too-easy to change the logic of a
function in a way that introduces a bug, and then have the annotation
hide a "is used uninitialised" warning.

But I definitely feel we shouldn't make our object code even slightly
worse just to shut up the warnings.

 - 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/