[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161018050804.GA9902@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:08:04 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/28] Reenable maybe-uninitialized warnings
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:03:28AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> This is a set of patches that I hope to get into v4.9 in some form
> in order to turn on the -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings again.
Hi Arnd,
I jsut complained to Geert that I was introducing way to many
bugs or pointless warnings for some compilers lately, but gcc didn't
warn me about them. From a little research the lack of
-Wmaybe-uninitialized seems to be the reason for it, so I'm all
for re-enabling it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists