From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: block/bsg.c Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:58:11 -0400 Message-ID: <469C1423.3090908@garzik.org> References: <20070716165706.348f6bbf.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <469C11B1.8000302@garzik.org> <20070716175347.bea345dd.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:38292 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752822AbXGQA6P (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:58:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070716175347.bea345dd.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: FUJITA Tomonori , Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:47:45 -0400 Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> Andrew Morton wrote: >>> The modern way of shutting up gcc is uninitialized_var(). >> >> Should I convert my misc-2.6.git#gccbug repository over to this, and >> push upstream? > > Opinions differ (a bit) but personally I think the benefit of fixing the > warnings outweighs the risk that these suppressions will later hide a real > bug. Tooting my own horn, but, anything in #gccbug I consider to be verified to -not- be hiding a real bug. Human-verified not machine-verified, of course, so it's imperfect. But at least it's been reviewed and considered carefully. I'll look into "tarting up" #gccbug for upstream... I had missed the introduction of uninitialized_var(), which was the genesis for this line of questioning. Jeff