Daniel Walker wrote:
On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 14:16 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
The downsides are that it muckies up the source a little and introduces a
very small risk that real use-uninitialised bugs will be hidden. But I
believe the benefit outweighs those disadvantages.
How about just marking the ones I've already done in #gccbug?
If I'm taking the time to audit the code, and separate out bogosities
from real bugs, it would be nice not to see that effort wasted.
There was a long thread on this, it's not about anyone not reviewing the
code properly when the warning is first silenced. It's that future
changes might create new problems that are also silenced. I don't think
it's a huge concern, especially since there's was a config option to
turn the warning backs on.
That doesn't address my question at all.
If there is no difference between real non-init bugs and bogus warnings,
then a config option doesn't make any difference at all, does it? Real
bugs are still hidden either way: if the warnings are turned on, the
bugs are lost in the noise. if the warnings are turned off, the bugs
are completely hidden.
Jeff
-
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]
