[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1389063743.9937.7.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 19:02:23 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>, Tom Vaden <tom.vaden@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/4] futex: silence uninitialized warnings
On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 10:55 +0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> wrote:
> > {
> > int lock_taken, ret, force_take = 0;
> > - u32 uval, newval, curval, vpid = task_pid_vnr(task);
> > + u32 uval, newval, uninitialized_var(curval), vpid = task_pid_vnr(task);
>
> Do you have some broken compiler?
I only notice this when testing this patchset on our servers with RHEL
6.4 (gcc 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-3)).
> I really tend to hate this kind of
> workarounds, because as mentioned, they can actually hide valid
> warnings, and it seems to be due to just stupid compilers. Are we
> perhaps better off trying to get people off the broken compiler
> versions instead?
As Darren points out, this path is unlikely to change, but I have no
particular preference otherwise.
--
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