linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.19-rc4

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: <4547A662.1090708@google.com>
Date:	Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:39:14 -0800
From:	Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>
To:	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Jun'ichi Nomura" <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.19-rc4

Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:14:32AM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> 
>>>But I've become innoculated against warnings, just because we have too 
>>>many of the totally useless noise about deprecation and crud, and ppc has 
>>>it's own set of bogus compiler-and-linker-generated warnings..
>>>
>>>At some point we should get rid of all the "politeness" warnings, just 
>>>because they can end up hiding the _real_ ones.
>>
>>Yay! Couldn't agree more. Does this mean you'll take patches for all the
>>uninitialized variable crap from gcc 4.x ?
> 
> 
> Why not apply pressure to gcc people to fix their compiler warning bugs
> instead?

I did. They didn't. Reality is a bitch.

To be fair, it says "variable *may* be uninitialised", which is correct,
in that it's not able to follow through functions. likely / unlikely
also broke it, but they fixed that in 4.2.x

M.

-
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/