linux-kernel - Re: Announce: gcc bogus warning repository

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]

Message-Id: <1159727188.24767.9.camel@c-67-180-230-165.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date:	Sun, 01 Oct 2006 11:26:28 -0700
From:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Announce: gcc bogus warning repository

On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 14:16 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > The downsides are that it muckies up the source a little and introduces a
> > very small risk that real use-uninitialised bugs will be hidden.  But I
> > believe the benefit outweighs those disadvantages.
> 
> How about just marking the ones I've already done in #gccbug?
> 
> If I'm taking the time to audit the code, and separate out bogosities 
> from real bugs, it would be nice not to see that effort wasted.

There was a long thread on this, it's not about anyone not reviewing the
code properly when the warning is first silenced. It's that future
changes might create new problems that are also silenced. I don't think
it's a huge concern, especially since there's was a config option to
turn the warning backs on.

Daniel

-
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/