On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 22:20 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:11:54PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > I really don't see why it couldn't be added. What's the problem with it?
> > >
> > > I mean, I see lots of advantages, and really no disadvantages.
>
> Your vision is quite selective, then.
>
> > We are in complete agreement .. The only disadvantage is maybe we cover
> > up and real error
>
> ... which is more than enough to veto it. However, that is not all.
> Consider the following scenario:
>
> 1) gcc gives false positive
> 2) tosser on a rampage "fixes" it
> 3) code is chaged a month later
> 4) a real bug is introduced - one that would be _really_ visible to gcc,
> with "is used" in a warning
> 5) thanks to aforementioned tosser, that bug remains hidden.
I don't really see anything new here .. The same sort of stuff can
happen in any code considered for inclusion .. That's what the review
process is for .
Real errors can be covered up any number of way ..
Daniel
-
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]
