Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423831AbWJaTjp (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:39:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1423832AbWJaTjo (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:39:44 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:60080 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423831AbWJaTjo (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:39:44 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent: x-accept-language:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to: content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=DXeD1C2LZzAZZpMnvSbVpu93U7XDvpdnpc//hwIeZz37PcegLKRmAfM2IwPiib7aP i2YwNWWbQwHNY+z8vzhEw== Message-ID: <4547A662.1090708@google.com> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:39:14 -0800 From: Martin Bligh User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051011) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russell King CC: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Jun'ichi Nomura" Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.19-rc4 References: <20061030213454.8266fcb6.akpm@osdl.org> <45477668.4070801@google.com> <20061031192613.GB26625@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20061031192613.GB26625@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1130 Lines: 30 Russell King wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:14:32AM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > >>>But I've become innoculated against warnings, just because we have too >>>many of the totally useless noise about deprecation and crud, and ppc has >>>it's own set of bogus compiler-and-linker-generated warnings.. >>> >>>At some point we should get rid of all the "politeness" warnings, just >>>because they can end up hiding the _real_ ones. >> >>Yay! Couldn't agree more. Does this mean you'll take patches for all the >>uninitialized variable crap from gcc 4.x ? > > > Why not apply pressure to gcc people to fix their compiler warning bugs > instead? I did. They didn't. Reality is a bitch. To be fair, it says "variable *may* be uninitialised", which is correct, in that it's not able to follow through functions. likely / unlikely also broke it, but they fixed that in 4.2.x M. - 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/