Re: Building 100 kernels; we suck at dependencies and drown in warnings

[Jesper Juhl]

On 2/26/06, Lee Revell <rlrevell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 22:49 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > On 2/26/06, Nix <nix@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > (i.e., there's a reason that warning uses the word *might*.)
> > >
> > The compiler says "might be used uninitialized" when it cannot
> > determine if a variable will be initialized before first use or not.
>
> Quoting the "silence gcc warning" thread:
>
> "Really, this is a gcc bug.  My version of the compiler:
>
> gcc version 4.0.3 20051201 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.2-5)
>
> Doesn't give this warning.  And, since the loop has fixed parameters,
> gcc should see not only that it's always executed, but that it could be
> unrolled."
>
Yeah so gcc is not perfect, but that still doesn't change that the
intention of the warning and the use of the word "might" is as I said
above.


--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/