From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Menon Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] OMAP: TWL: sparse fixes Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 07:32:58 -0600 Message-ID: <4D24730A.3050905@ti.com> References: <1294081110-23695-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <20110103223656.GA8414@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4D22503F.9060100@ti.com> <4D238503.6070103@ti.com> <20110105002549.GA1445@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog101.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.67]:60533 "EHLO na3sys009aog101.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752101Ab1AENdP (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jan 2011 08:33:15 -0500 Received: by mail-gw0-f47.google.com with SMTP id a12so3568422gwa.34 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 05:33:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110105002549.GA1445@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Tony , l-o , l-a Russell King - ARM Linux wrote, on 01/04/2011 06:25 PM: > On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 02:37:23PM -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote: >> hmm.. minor nit (with codesourcery 2010.09-50 - 4.5.1): >> rm arch/arm/mach-omap2/*.o;make C=1 arch/arm/mach-omap2/ 2>Kerr;make C=2 >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/ 2>Kerr1;diff Kerr Kerr1 >> [..] >> 1,4d0 >> < arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c: In function 'omap_mux_get_by_name': >> < arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c:163:17: warning: 'found_mode' may be used >> uninitialized in this function >> < arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c: In function 'omap2_clksel_set_parent': >> < arch/arm/mach-omap2/clkt_clksel.c:100:35: warning: 'max_clkr' may be >> used uninitialized in this function >> >> Kinda interesting to note that C=2 does'nt list all potential gcc >> warnings :( if one wanted a collated list of all warnings, rm .../*.o >> helps I guess. > > C=2 only runs sparse - so if you're committing patches to fix sparse > warnings, that's what you should be interested in. > > I'd suggest that fixing sparse warnings and GCC warnings in a single > patch is probably not the best thing to do - GCC warnings are less > subjective than sparse warnings. I agree. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon