Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Sender: Ingo Molnar <mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2023 11:06:37 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
Cc:     Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@amd.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/amd/uncore: fix error codes in amd_uncore_init()
Message-ID: <ZSkInflBriOL9V3M@gmail.com>
References: <cec62eba-c4b8-4cb7-9671-58894dd4b974@moroto.mountain>
 <ZSjyJuqk3z0RyKP2@gmail.com>
 <0c973a20-e10c-4989-b7d9-86cb0f522718@kadam.mountain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0c973a20-e10c-4989-b7d9-86cb0f522718@kadam.mountain>
Precedence: bulk


* Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 09:30:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > Ugh, why on Earth didn't GCC warn about this? The bad pattern is pretty 
> > simple & obvious once pointed out ... compilers should have no trouble 
> > realizing that 'ret' is returned uninitialized in some of these control 
> > paths. Yet not a peep from the compiler ...
> 
> We disabled that warning years ago (5?) because GCC had too many false 
> positives.

GCC had some pretty bogus notions about 'possible' uninitialized use that 
encouraged some bad code patterns, but in this case there's readily 
provable uninitialized use, that a compiler should warn about.

Is it possible to disable just the unreliable, probabilistic part of GCC's 
uninitialized variables warnings?

Thanks,

	Ingo