From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Remy Horton Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] drivers/net/ixgbe: Fix uninitialized warning Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:22:20 +0000 Message-ID: <56E28E4C.20502@intel.com> References: <1456426121-21423-1-git-send-email-aconole@redhat.com> <1456426121-21423-9-git-send-email-aconole@redhat.com> <56E179E2.1020704@redhat.com> <56E18894.6020409@intel.com> <56E18CA5.4090200@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Panu Matilainen , dev@dpdk.org Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A269E2BEA for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:23:40 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <56E18CA5.4090200@redhat.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 10/03/2016 15:03, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On 03/10/2016 04:45 PM, Remy Horton wrote: [...] >> In two minds about this. It is a logical impossibility, but these days >> optimising compilers are getting very aggressive. For instance GCC has a >> delightfully-named -fdelete-null-pointer-checks option, which caused >> security holes.. > > Indeed, that's why silencing a false positive (assuming it actually is > one) by throwing some more NULL-checks for the allegedly impossible > makes me a bit nervous. Besides compiler optimizations going crazy, I've > seen such extra NULL-checks turn into actual bugs when surroundings > subtly change. It cuts both ways. To anyone who is not an active compiler engineer, fixing a warning being /more/ likley to screw things up is quite a big thing. Do we want to turn off warnings or turn off optimisations.. :) ..Remy