From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [git patches] two warning fixes Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:20:37 +0100 Message-ID: <20070719192037.687e3608@oldman> References: <20070718235504.GA9601@havoc.gtf.org> <469ECD29.2010909@garzik.org> Reply-To: linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IBacK-0006nb-B9 for linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:20:52 -0700 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1IBacI-0005aM-P1 for linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:20:48 -0700 Received: from oldman ([87.192.216.40]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp2.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id l6JIKYL6007563 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:20:38 -0700 In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-fbdev-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: linux-fbdev-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:04:29 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > > > > Jeff Garzik writes: > > > > > My overall goal is killing useless warnings > > > that continually obscure real ones. > > > > Precisely, the goal should be to make must_check (and similar things) > > warn only in real cases. > > .. the problem with that mentality is that it's not how people work. > > People shut up warnings by adding code. > > Adding code tends to add bugs. > > People don't generally think "maybe that warning was bogus". > > More people *should* generally ask themselves: "was the warning worth it?" > and then, if the answer is "no", they shouldn't add code, they should > remove the thing that causes the warning in the first place. > > For example, for compiler options, the correct thign is often to just say > "that option was broken", and not use "-fsign-warning", for example. We've > literally have had bugs *added* because people "fixed" a sign warning. > More than once, in fact. > > Every time you see a warning, you should ask yourself: is the warning > interesting, correct and valid? And if it isn't all three, then the > problem is whatever *causes* the warning, not the code itself. > > Linus Can we ever get the gcc developers to fix all the bogus warnings about variables that "might not be set"? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/