Re: [PATCH] EDAC/amd64: Shut up an -Werror,-Wsometimes-uninitialized clang false positive

[Borislav Petkov]

On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 07:32:36AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> So I disagree with the characterization that clang is "overeager to
> report false positives" and I think the opinionated parts of the commit
> message could be replaced with some of the technical analysis that Tom
> and I did to show why this is a false positive but not one clang can
> reason about with the way the code is structured (since the warning does
> not perform interprocedural analysis).

I'm sure you can create all kinds of cases like this one if
interprocedural analysis or aggressive inlining doesn't happen. So I'm
rather surprised that this is the first false positive to happen. But
whateva.

And since we're disagreeing with things: I don't mind if this is a false
positive - I don't care. What I don't agree with is having -Werror fail
the build because of it and forcing us to "wag the dog", so to speak.

And you can imagine that this has been happening for a while now. And it
can explain my reaction to yet another compiler fix.

But ok, we've wasted enough time on this, lemme tone down the commit
message and commit it.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette