linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] TRACING: Fix a copmile warning

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: <1311625197.3526.35.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:19:57 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>
Cc:	stufever@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Wang Shaoyan <wangshaoyan.pt@...bao.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TRACING: Fix a copmile warning

On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 15:43 -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:

> Actually, we have a special uninitialized_var(x) macro to handle such
> false positive. From include/linux/compiler-gcc.h:
> 
> /*
>  * A trick to suppress uninitialized variable warning without generating any
>  * code
>  */
> #define uninitialized_var(x) x = x

I'm aware of that too, but I think that is inappropriate as well. As I
said, some versions of gcc report it, others don't. Seems that gcc 4.6.0
says this is an error where 4.5.1 does not (I just tried both). Looks to
me like a regression in gcc. Why not fix it there?

-- Steve


--
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/