[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0c973a20-e10c-4989-b7d9-86cb0f522718@kadam.mountain>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 11:12:07 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/amd/uncore: fix error codes in amd_uncore_init()
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 09:30:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Ugh, why on Earth didn't GCC warn about this? The bad pattern is pretty
> simple & obvious once pointed out ... compilers should have no trouble
> realizing that 'ret' is returned uninitialized in some of these control
> paths. Yet not a peep from the compiler ...
We disabled that warning years ago (5?) because GCC had too many false
positives.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists