Re: Linux 2.6.19-rc4

[Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:34:23 PST, Ray Lee said:
> On 10/31/06, Martin J. Bligh <mbligh@google.com> 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