From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com [207.106.133.19]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B5C3DE1DD for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:21:11 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 23:21:04 -0500 From: Nathan Lynch To: Tony Breeds Subject: Re: [PATCH] Quieten arch/powerpc in a allmodconfig build. Message-ID: <20090409232104.60d25d26@manatee.lan> In-Reply-To: <20090409000112.GI16602@bilbo.ozlabs.org> References: <2c4bcf8d1d7083ff53ce5b556765e96676a007fb.1239165378.git.tony@bakeyournoodle.com> <1239167335.10104.26.camel@localhost> <20090408055126.GG16602@bilbo.ozlabs.org> <1239173283.10104.38.camel@localhost> <20090408134736.682bd56d@manatee.lan> <20090409000112.GI16602@bilbo.ozlabs.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Tony Breeds wrote: > On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 01:47:36PM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote: > > > I think I had some reason for doing it this way, but I'm drawing a > > blank right now. > > > > In the meantime, can someone post the warnings that gcc emits for > > cacheinfo.c, as well as the gcc version? I can't reproduce them with > > 4.3.2 on Fedora. > > --- > [tony@thor ~]$ egrep cacheinfo tmp/build.log > /scratch/tony/working/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c: In function 'associativity_show': > /scratch/tony/working/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c:562: warning: 'associativity' may be used uninitialized in this function > /scratch/tony/working/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c: In function 'size_show': > /scratch/tony/working/arch/powerpc/kernel/cacheinfo.c:513: warning: 'size_kb' may be used uninitialized in this function Thanks. So I think I've convinced myself that the warnings are incorrect and that uninitialized use is not possible. But I find it odd that gcc gives warnings for these sites but not others in the file that use the same idiom (e.g. line_size_show, nr_sets_show). I'd guess that inlining is implicated somehow. Would I be justified in worrying that this version of gcc is generating incorrect code? If not, then I'm fine with the uninitialized_var() changes, but do please include the warnings and the compiler version in the changelog.