[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131127153519.GA26095@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:35:19 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
darren@...art.com, johan.eker@...csson.com, p.faure@...tech.ch,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, claudio@...dence.eu.com,
michael@...rulasolutions.com, fchecconi@...il.com,
tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it, nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it,
luca.abeni@...tn.it, dhaval.giani@...il.com, hgu1972@...il.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, raistlin@...ux.it,
insop.song@...il.com, liming.wang@...driver.com, jkacur@...hat.com,
harald.gustafsson@...csson.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
bruce.ashfield@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/14] sched: add latency tracing for -deadline tasks.
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 03:34:35PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:16:47AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:43:45 +0100
> > > > Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c b/kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c
> > > > > index f76f8d6..ad94604 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_selftest.c
> > > > > @@ -1023,16 +1023,16 @@ trace_selftest_startup_nop(struct tracer *trace, struct trace_array *tr)
> > > > > static int trace_wakeup_test_thread(void *data)
> > > > > {
> > > > > /* Make this a -deadline thread */
> > > > > - struct sched_param2 paramx = {
> > > > > + static const struct sched_param2 param = {
> > > > > .sched_priority = 0,
> > > > > + .sched_flags = 0,
> > > > > .sched_runtime = 100000ULL,
> > > > > .sched_deadline = 10000000ULL,
> > > > > .sched_period = 10000000ULL
> > > > > - .sched_flags = 0
> > > >
> > > > Assigning structures like this, you don't need to set the zero fields.
> > > > all fields not explicitly stated, are set to zero.
> > >
> > > Only because its static. Otherwise unnamed members have indeterminate
> > > value after initialization.
> >
> > I think for 'struct' C will initialize them to zero, even if they are
> > not mentioned and even if they are on the stack.
> >
> > It will only be indeterminate when it's not initialized at all.
>
> Language spec: ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (aka C99) section 6.7.8 point 9
> says:
>
> 9. Except where explicitly stated otherwise, for the purpose of this
> subclause unnamed members of objects of structure and union type do no
> participate in initialization. Unnamed members of structure objects have
> indeterminate value even after initialization.
>
> Later points (notably 21) make such an exception for aggregate objects
> of static storage.
>
> Of course, its entirely possible I read the thing wrong; its 31 points
> detailing the initialization of objects.
So why does GCC then behave like this:
triton:~> cat test.c
struct foo {
int a;
int b;
};
int main(void)
{
struct foo x = { .a = 1 };
return x.b;
}
triton:~> gcc -Wall -Wextra -O2 -o test test.c; ./test; echo $?
0
I'd expect -Wall -Wextra to warn about as trivial as the uninitialized
variable use that you argue happens.
I'd also expect it to not return 0 but some random value on the stack
(which is most likely not 0).
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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