linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf: fix wrong DEBUG configuration

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: <5564393C.1090104@suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 26 May 2015 11:13:32 +0200
From:	Martin Liška <mliska@...e.cz>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: fix wrong DEBUG configuration

On 05/25/2015 08:32 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>> Em Mon, May 25, 2015 at 01:12:44PM +0200, Martin Liška escreveu:
>>> On 05/25/2015 01:09 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> * Martin Liška <mliska@...e.cz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Right optimize debugging experience is given by passing -Og to
>>>>>>> compiler. Assign default value for pointers that are identified by
>>>>>>> compiler as non-initialized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> s/Right optimize debugging experience is given/
>>>>>>    Correct debugging experience is given/
>>>>
>>>>> Right debugging experience is given by passing -Og to compiler.
>>>>
>>>> So I fixed the spelling here once already :-/ If you want to use
>>>> 'right' in this context then use it like this:
>>>>
>>>>    The right debugging experience is given by ...
>>>>
>>>> Or you can use what I suggested first:
>>>>
>>>>    Correct debugging experience is given by ...
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> 	Ingo
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry Ingo for that, I overlooked that correction :)
>>
>> Are you ok with this Ingo?
>
> Yeah, certainly!
>
>> I can apply, but there seems to be two patches folded here, one that
>> sets the possibly unitiliazed variables to NULL, and could be the
>> first in the series, and the other, that deals with multiple
>> versions of gcc and how should we ask something from them.
>
> Yeah.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 	Ingo
>

Hello.

As Arnaldo pointed, I split the patch to following 2 smaller patches.

Thanks,
Martin

View attachment "0001-perf-Fix-compiler-warnings.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1575 bytes)

View attachment "0002-perf-fix-wrong-DEBUG-configuration.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1765 bytes)