On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:34:23 PST, Ray Lee said: > On 10/31/06, Martin J. Bligh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 ? > > What would be useful in the short term is a tool that shows only the > new warnings that didn't exist in the last point release. Harder to do than you might think - it has to deal with the fact that 2.6.N might have a warning about 'used unintialized on line 430', and in 2.6.N+1 you get two warnings, one on line 420 and one on 440. Which one is new and which one just moved 10 lines up or down? Or did a patch fix the one on 430 and add 2 new ones?
Attachment:
pgpXanLpNj8uj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Linux 2.6.19-rc4
- From: Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux 2.6.19-rc4
- From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux 2.6.19-rc4
- References:
- Linux 2.6.19-rc4
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux 2.6.19-rc4
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux 2.6.19-rc4
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux 2.6.19-rc4
- From: "Martin J. Bligh" <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux 2.6.19-rc4
- From: "Ray Lee" <[email protected]>
- Linux 2.6.19-rc4
- Prev by Date: Re: Ordering between PCI config space writes and MMIO reads?
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fat: improve sync performance by grouping writes revised
- Previous by thread: Re: Linux 2.6.19-rc4
- Next by thread: Re: Linux 2.6.19-rc4
- Index(es):
 |