linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] get rid of some "may be used uninitialized" compiler warnings

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:	Sat, 29 Nov 2008 01:39:28 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Jirka Pirko <jirka@...ko.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] get rid of some "may be used uninitialized" compiler
 warnings

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:26:01 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

>  196 files changed, 545 insertions(+), 436 deletions(-)

Is any of this going anywhere?

There's a lot of resistance to fixing these things with
uninitialized_var() (usually bogus resistance, IMO, but one
gets tired of repeating oneself).

Many of these warnings can be fixed by restructuring the code, and
often the end result is better overall.

But it's a lot more work.  It would be much more scalable to, umm,
motivate the various code-owners to fix their stuff independently.  I
don't know how, really - people just don't seem to appreciate how
irritating and damaging that great warning spew is.

Is there any prospect that some of these things will be fixed by newer
gcc versions?  If so, we could just ignore those warnings and
concentrate on the ones which newer gcc emits.
--
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/