[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzQxws_ipKZhV9cFrJdV8CvKy=m9AxGe5cjM=FYceNbZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 22:26:50 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, mussitantesmortem@...il.com,
nicolas.ferre@...el.com, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
robert.jarzmik@...e.fr, yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kbuild updates for v4.7-rc1
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com> wrote:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mmarek/kbuild.git kbuild
This pull results in new warnings.
I get new "may be uninitialized" warnings now for me allmodconfig
build, and while I didn't look at them all, the one I looked at was
just entirely crap:
fs/gfs2/dir.c: In function ‘dir_split_leaf.isra.16’:
fs/gfs2/dir.c:1021:8: warning: ‘leaf_no’ may be used uninitialized
in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
error = get_leaf(dip, leaf_no, &obh);
^
yeah no, leaf_no is initialized a few lines up by
error = get_leaf_nr(dip, index, &leaf_no);
and the fact that gcc can't follow the trivial error handling is not
our fault. It looks *so* trivial that I wonder why.
That said, I don't see exactly what in the pull request causes this.
My reading of the diff seems to say that you are actually adding
*more* cases of -Wno-maybe-uninitialized, not less.
So I suspect it's almost accidental in just how the Kconfig option
CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_PERFORMANCE happened, which in turn probably just
changes the options for "make allmiodconfig", and it now picks a
non-size-optimized build that always showed those warnings and I just
didn't see them.
Annoying. I've pulled it, but I wish you would look at this.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists