[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121120104400.4832dea1@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:44:00 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: paolo.valente@...more.it, jhs@...atatu.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
rizzo@....unipi.it, fchecconi@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: QFQ Plus: fair-queueing service at DRR cost
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:15:16 -0500 (EST)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:09:58 -0800
>
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:02:02 -0500 (EST)
> > David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
> >> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:53:04 -0800
> >>
> >> > There are actually lots of bogus warnings than seem to only occur
> >> > because gcc 4.4 does a bad job of checking. Later versions are fixed
> >> > and don't generate warnings.
> >> >
> >> > My preference is to not add the unnecessary initialization because
> >> > if you get in the habit of doing it. The whole purpose of the uninitialized
> >> > check is lost.
> >>
> >> Try again, this was with gcc-4.7.2-2 on Fedora.
> >>
> >> There are too many preconditions, across multiple basic block, which
> >> together ensure the skb is in fact initialized at the point in
> >> question and the compiler simply isn't sophisticated enough to see
> >> that.
> >
> > Weird, it compiles clean on x86-84 on Debian.
> > gcc-4.7.real (Debian 4.7.2-4) 4.7.2
>
> Fedora backports a lot more stuff into gcc than Debian does.
Probably. that's it. Plus Fedora has more gcc maintainers.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists