From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.stusta.mhn.de (mail.stusta.mhn.de [141.84.69.5]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0465179BC9 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 10:43:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.stusta.mhn.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44LMcF2wH4z7G; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 11:43:08 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stusta.de; s=default; t=1552646590; bh=js0DokW5/feqXWorDYnKIGl8Eq0wv0PVdMNuxBxpN4s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=RqBPL0A9L9ZkZAYrbbG1RWVwxj7YaMW0nNoQT270DjTwcHQSOhNvSirw/xMedvKy8 YpbVl06UmFwfHwbMVQgrQ4fSOkm6pVhjwVbu3djT6tLFedWLyG7j69gwIrUes4fAm/ RlrMqTQiNwO1uCO3Ucr5Y4B8LKREwr96AqqrLM/nVHqO82C9eINgNJR00RAJruqUZV mUe2M6v6gSjBxxZ5XfVeI3ZhHihFtvNBAg72Iz1yzj5DpH+7kkUsfqer5UeuSzEZQL Mf+98OrOYr4vv4mICeKH+Uvyms110CsK2TdnjFH5JyFfQxLtfAMsFTdL+7THTEXTUD Z10H6tgSjROJ6bLd0SQsLqVkM8K2g0K1RvFtHikYM44g2ETi70YIK4UqbZJHWfmZMY 6cFvMaAlMHVegjMweXrGKzO9Xd4vuE5WSADWGV8/fkIUm7jR0I+Q8ajUv6kar5NlWS PlDDjymn9atYmShX6X4Ou+vdTsQ4Ja+C63wVKpaRrhEfIZ6VQvVLQIEo0hGwzii1xu h8IBGvBKE7/dCsxxRX6E1Hi1Zm8RgzQLc84kFmQUXB+dM8QD4lO7iK5MUrdggVS9YA yVMkAAz4aQ6le0KQ5/0rMbFd6MmS/VcmWAybHnm4wxoImOsSqaJJsUfhYWQE4OXDRs wrgpqPVJhGVPKGce0ta8G45A= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:43:06 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: "Burton, Ross" Message-ID: <20190315104306.GA14180@localhost> References: <20190314191924.44162-1-joe.slater@windriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Cc: OE-core Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] puzzles: fix uninitialized variable compiler error X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 10:43:11 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 07:25:16PM +0000, Burton, Ross wrote: > Can we *please* start sending these upstream. It's not like the > maintainer isn't responsive. This would also help to get such patches properly reviewed. > Ross > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 19:20, Joe Slater wrote: >... > > +The compiler does not realize that we must go through the while() > > +loop at least once, so we replace it with a for() loop. >... > > +- n = t->root; > > +- while (n) { > > ++ /* > > ++ * We know t->root is not NULL. The logic > > ++ * to break out of this is at the end of the loop. > > ++ */ > > ++ for (n = t->root;;) { >... This is the second patch this week where I don't see why a "fix" should make any difference. The code immediately above is: if (t->root == NULL) { ... return orig_e; ) The submitter did not provide information how to reproduce, but when I try to reproduce the problem on amd64 it happens only with -Og (due to puzzles upstream building with -Werror). This would also explain why such patches suddenly start getting submitted - 2 weeks ago DEBUG_OPTIMIZATION was changed from -O to -Og. -Werror is added after the passed CFLAGS so adding -Wno-error globally would not help here, but a non-upstreamable patch to remove the -Werror looks more correct here as a short-term workaround. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed