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  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:	Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:09:08 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <>
To:	Jeff Garzik <>
Cc:	FUJITA Tomonori <>,
	Jens Axboe <>,,
Subject: Re: block/bsg.c

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:58:11 -0400 Jeff Garzik <> wrote:

> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:47:45 -0400 Jeff Garzik <> wrote:
> > 
> >> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>> The modern way of shutting up gcc is uninitialized_var().
> >>
> >> Should I convert my misc-2.6.git#gccbug repository over to this, and 
> >> push upstream?
> > 
> > Opinions differ (a bit) but personally I think the benefit of fixing the
> > warnings outweighs the risk that these suppressions will later hide a real
> > bug.
> Tooting my own horn, but, anything in #gccbug I consider to be verified 
> to -not- be hiding a real bug.  Human-verified not machine-verified, of 
> course, so it's imperfect.  But at least it's been reviewed and 
> considered carefully.

Yup, but the concern (from Al, iirc) was that someone could change the code
later on, add a new bug and have that bug hidden by the unneeded

> I'll look into "tarting up" #gccbug for upstream...  I had missed the 
> introduction of uninitialized_var(), which was the genesis for this line 
> of questioning.

uninitialized_var() has the advantage that it generates no code, whereas "=
0" often adds instructions.  Plus of course it is self-documenting, greppable-for
and centrally alterable.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists