From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Arnd Bergmann To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Stephen Boyd , Michael Turquette , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Roman Volkov , Tony Prisk , Andrzej Hajda , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: vt8500: don't return possibly uninitialized data Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 21:00:29 +0100 Message-ID: <2326140.nrZ9Ej2PSt@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <20160202194713.GN4848@codeaurora.org> References: <4790407.6zgSQCdsSB@wuerfel> <2210116.QsPesySkh0@wuerfel> <20160202194713.GN4848@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-ID: On Tuesday 02 February 2016 11:47:13 Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 02/02, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Monday 01 February 2016 17:15:45 Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > I see what you mean now. I checked different gcc versions, and with my patch I get > > the warnings for 4.6 through 4.9, but not for 5.x. > > > > In general, I tried to only address warnings I still see with newer gcc version, > > as they are better about false positives. Do you think it's ok to take the > > patch as is then? Otherwise we probably have to add fake initializations which > > would shut up the warnings but not help with the code quality. > > > > Sure. I was hoping something could be done to restructure the > code to make it easier for the compiler to figure out the > variables would be initialized. But you're the one who's sending > the patch to silence them so if you're satisfied I'm not going to > spend too much time on this. > Ok, thanks! Note that this one patch was for a real bug involving undefined behavior that is now fixed. Arnd