[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1155976887.1388.17.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:41:27 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>
To: Andy Gay <andy@...ynet.net>
Cc: Thomas Klein <osstklei@...ibm.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Thomas Klein <tklein@...ibm.com>,
Jan-Bernd Themann <themann@...ibm.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Raisch <raisch@...ibm.com>,
linux-ppc <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
Marcus Eder <meder@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [2.6.19 PATCH 4/7] ehea: ethtool interface
On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 02:48 -0400, Andy Gay wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 16:18 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> >
> > If you try to return an uninitialized value the compiler will warn you,
> > you'll then look at the code and realise you missed a case, you might
> > save yourself a bug.
>
> You *should* look at the code :)
>
> So should we be reporting these as bugs?
No you're better off sending patches ;)
A lot of these have started appearing recently, which I think is due to
GCC becoming more vocal. Unfortunately many of them are false positives
caused by GCC not seeming to grok that this is ok:
void foo(int *x) { *x = 1; }
...
int x;
foo(&x);
return x;
It's a pity because it creates noise, but still it's beside the point.
New code going into the kernel should be 100% warning free, and so if
the eHEA guys had missed an error case they'd spot the warning before
they submitted it.
Doing the initialise-to-some-value "trick" means you only spot the bug
via testing.
cheers
--
Michael Ellerman
IBM OzLabs
wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au
phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183)
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (192 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists