linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] serial/8250: fix uninitialized warnings

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:	Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:58:08 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial/8250: fix uninitialized warnings

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:48:43 +0000
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > That's a regression in current gcc, surely?
> 
> Oh and as a PS: Gcc is I believe right because if the loop is run zero
> times then pos = NULL (ie n == NULL so the first BUG_ON fires)

Whoa.  That would be clever of it.


On about half the architectures, BUG is not considered to be no-return.
Dunno if that's a gcc shortcoming or if the architectures just haven't
implemented it properly yet.  This causes those architectures to
generate quite a few warnings in generic code which don't appear on
x86 (this would be one such case if your above theory is correct).

This is fairly irritating of those architectures, as I keep on going
in asking "what's up" and deciding "oh, that again".
--
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/