[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53C97E0F.6090601@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:05:35 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the tip tree
On 07/18/2014 12:57 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> This particular warning is IMO in a particularly dumb category: GCC
> optimizes some code and then warns about a construct that wasn't there
> in the original code. In this case, I think it unrolled a loop and
> discovered that one iteration contained a test that was always true.
> Big deal.
>
> (OTOH, the code in question was buggy, but not all for the reason that
> GCC thought it was.)
>
if (syms[sym_vvar_start] > syms[i] + 4096)
fail("%s underruns begin_vvar\n",
required_syms[i].name);
if i == sym_vvar_start then this is at least a valid warning. It could
easily be quieted by chaning syms[] to an unsigned array.
-hpa
--
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