linux-kernel - Re: somebody dropped a (warning) bomb

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]

Date:	Fri, 16 Feb 2007 05:26:02 +0100
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Sergei Organov <osv@...ad.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	"J.A. MagallÃÃÃÃÃÂ³n" 
	<jamagallon@....com>, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: somebody dropped a (warning) bomb

On 02/15/2007 08:02 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Think of it this way: in science, a theory is proven to be bad by a
> single undeniable fact just showing that it's wrong.
> 
> The same is largely true of a warning. If the warning sometimes
> happens for code that is perfectly fine, the warning is bad.

Slight difference; if a compulsory warning sometimes happens for code 
that is perfectly fine, the warning is bad. I do want to be _able_ to 
get as many warnings as a compiler can muster though.

Given char's special nature, shouldn't the conclusion of this thread 
have long been simply that gcc needs -Wno-char-pointer-sign? (with 
whatever default, as far as I'm concerned).

Rene.
-
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/