[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <EB232FE2-9E35-412E-869A-66BF871A6397@mac.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 16:52:52 -0400
From: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: make-bogus-warnings-go-away tree [was: 2.6.18-mm3]
On Oct 05, 2006, at 06:05:16, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> A small suggestion: to give GCC folks a chance to actually fix
>> this, could we actively annotate these places instead of working
>> them around?
>
> There was a patch posted in the past, mentioned in the thread
> discussed my #gccbug branch, that permitted annotations with zero
> code size changes. I think that sort of annotation approach would
> be preferred. It was something like
>
> #define noinit_warning(x) \
> do { (void) (x) = (x); } while (0)
>
> but given my memory, that's probably all wrong.
The simplest way given the current GCC feature-set is:
#ifdef HIDE_GCC_FALSE_POSITIVES
# define correct_init(x) x = x
#else
# define correct_init(x) x
#endif
Then:
int correct_init(arg);
struct some_struct correct_init(foo);
Alternatively if only some struct member has problems and the rest
are OK:
struct some_struct foo;
correct_init(foo.bar);
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-
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