linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2.6.19-rc3] i386/io_apic: fix compiler warning in create

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: <20061031111502.GA21450@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:15:02 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.19-rc3] i386/io_apic: fix compiler warning in create_irq


* Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:

> > this is an initialize-to-zero annotation for a false-positive gcc 
> > warning. If it's not in Jeff tree yet then it should be there ...
> 
> hm, I wouldn't call that "annotation".
> 
> Now, the
> 
> #define SHUT_GCC_UP(x)	= x
> 
> 	...
> 	int foo SHUT_GCC_UP(foo);
> 	...
> 
> (or whatever it was) trick was "annotation".  A good way of doing it 
> too, IMO.

hm, i thought Jeff's tree was doing that ...

we definitely do not want to hide these places. They both make the code 
less readable (why initialize it to some value if that value is never 
used) and they hide the problem from the GCC folks too.

	Ingo
-
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/