| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:51:44 +0800 From: Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com> To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] 8250: Eliminate compile warning of 8250.c On Tuesday 25 November 2008 18:43:34 Alan Cox wrote: > > Can't understand initializing got "risk hiding future ones". As I know, > > didn't > > Because if you set it to NULL and later delete a line which does the > intended assignment you will no longer get a warning. > > > think BUG_ON(n==null) cover this. And I don't think leave it to compiler > > is more proper here. > > The BUG_ON covers it, the current gcc gets this right and works it out. > > NAK again The logic here is strange... If you used old compiler, you would get a warning, and you thought that's ensured we won't delete a intended assignment by mistake. If you used new compiler, you wouldn't get a warning, and you think this time the compiler get it right. So, what result did you expect? A warning to notice that we didn't delete a intended assignment, or a "right" result? OK. if you worry about "delete a line which does the intended assignment", the updated version with BUG_ON(i == NULL) can help. -- regards Yang, Sheng -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists