linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] SPI: improve sysfs compiler complaint handling

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:39:34 +0200
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SPI: improve sysfs compiler complaint handling

> Does anyone know why the GCC folk have decided to go against decades
> of common practice here???

because it's new semantics. I was involved in this GCC feature (not in
the coding just in the asking for it) and this behavior was specifically
requested: It is called __must_check, you MUST CHECK it. It's not the
normal "unused warning", by putting the attribute on the function you
tell gcc that the result MUST be checked. Just a cast to void isn't
checking it.... so it rightfully warns.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/