[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 21:00:29 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Roman Volkov <v1ron@...l.ru>,
Tony Prisk <linux@...sktech.co.nz>,
Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: vt8500: don't return possibly uninitialized data
On Tuesday 02 February 2016 11:47:13 Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 02/02, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 01 February 2016 17:15:45 Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >
> > I see what you mean now. I checked different gcc versions, and with my patch I get
> > the warnings for 4.6 through 4.9, but not for 5.x.
> >
> > In general, I tried to only address warnings I still see with newer gcc version,
> > as they are better about false positives. Do you think it's ok to take the
> > patch as is then? Otherwise we probably have to add fake initializations which
> > would shut up the warnings but not help with the code quality.
> >
>
> Sure. I was hoping something could be done to restructure the
> code to make it easier for the compiler to figure out the
> variables would be initialized. But you're the one who's sending
> the patch to silence them so if you're satisfied I'm not going to
> spend too much time on this.
>
Ok, thanks!
Note that this one patch was for a real bug involving undefined
behavior that is now fixed.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists