On 1/6/06, Luiz Fernando Capitulino <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 19:48:11 +0100
> Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> | > having assigned a value we know that gcc's warning is wrong, idx can
> | > never *actually* be used uninitialized.
> |
> | Indeed, that's the whole point. For the original submitter, you are not
> | the first to submit this. See archives for basically the same thread as
> | this one...
>
> Al Viro got it: I just wanted to make gcc not complain. But
> 'obfuscate correct code' for it is wrong.
>
> The code is right, the patch is bad. That's it.
>
Yeah, but thanks for trying.
You may have been wrong in this case (and learned to verify your
patches more thoroughly), but the effort to try and review and help
improve the kernel is apreciated.
--
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
