From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] IDE: Silent compiler warning in ide_pio_bytes() Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:05:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20090623.030549.88246370.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20090623085324.03b25bb9@hyperion.delvare> <20090623.023211.06996077.davem@davemloft.net> <20090623115207.58c4ff59@hyperion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:43102 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752366AbZFWKFo (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:05:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090623115207.58c4ff59@hyperion.delvare> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: khali@linux-fr.org Cc: bzolnier@gmail.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, petkovbb@googlemail.com From: Jean Delvare Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:52:07 +0200 > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:32:11 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote: >> From: Jean Delvare >> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:53:24 +0200 >> >> > I fear somebody else will have to do that. I personally think >> > uninitialized_var() should not have been invented, I don't want to have >> > my name associated with any of its uses for it will inevitably lead to >> > bugs in the future. >> > >> > I'll resubmit a patch not fixing the warning (because the rest is still >> > useful I think) but that's about all I can offer. >> >> The alternative will be that someone will ask "when does the '0' case >> get used" and have to sort through that and potentially ask people >> here on the lists. > > The comment I added, /* Silent compiler warning */, should have > answered this question pretty clearly, methinks. Yet the uninitialzed_var() tag was created to indicate this tree-wide. A convention for the entire tree. You can try to fight city hall with your protest, but I suspect biting off one's nose to spite one's face is not profitable in the end. >> But you posted and update patch which solves the problem in an >> even nicer way :-) > > Is it enough to silent the warning for you? I wasn't for me (gcc > 4.3.2), although I expected it to... gcc should be able to see there is > no code path leading to the variable being used uninitialized. I didn't check, I suspected that you rewrote the patch this way because it did kill the warning for you. Guess not. I'll be the pragmatist and add the uninitialized_var() myself, and will not for posterity your continued support of "the anti- uninitialized_var() cause" :-)