[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877dyzv6y2.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 12:25:25 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the tip tree
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:47:46 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (arm
>> multi_v7_defconfig) produced this warning:
>>
>> kernel/futex.c: In function 'do_futex':
>> kernel/futex.c:1676:17: warning: 'oldval' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>> 1676 | return oldval == cmparg;
>> | ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~
>> kernel/futex.c:1652:6: note: 'oldval' was declared here
>> 1652 | int oldval, ret;
>> | ^~~~~~
>>
>> Introduced by commit
>>
>> a08971e9488d ("futex: arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser() calling
>> conventions change")
Huch?
>> but I don't see how it makes this difference :-(
Me neither. Which compiler version?
I'm using arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc (Debian 8.3.0-2) 8.3.0 which does not
show that oddity.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists