From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] sys_semctl gcc 4.1 warning fix
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 18:24:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060510162404.GR3570@stusta.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0605101116590.5532@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:24:31AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 May 2006, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 16:09 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > On Mer, 2006-05-10 at 07:31 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > > > Hiding warnings like this can be a hazard as it will hide real warnings
> > > > > later on.
> > > >
> > > > How could it hide real warnings? If anything these patch allow other
> > > > (real warnings) to be seen .
> > >
> > > Because while the warning is present people will check it now and again.
> >
> > But it's pointless to review it, in this case and for this warning .
> >
> > > If you set the variable to zero then you generate extra code and you
> > > ensure nobody will look in future.
> >
> > The extra code is a problem , I'll admit that . But the warning should
> > disappear , it's just a waste .
> >
>
> What is really needed is an attribute to add to function parameters, that
> tells gcc that the parameter, if a pointer, will be initialize via the
> function.
>
> For example:
>
> #define __assigned __attribute__((initialized))
>
> then declare a function:
>
> int my_init_variabl(__assigned struct mystruct *var);
>
> So gcc can know that the passed in variable will be updated. It could
> then check to see if the function actually does initialize the pointer,
> if the declaration is visible to the function definition itself.
>
> Any gcc developers watching :)
It seems you don't understand the problem at all:
First of all note that your example does not apply in this case:
copy_semid_from_user() does _not_ initialize sembuf in all cases.
And you do not understand where gcc's problem is:
gcc does in fact see that setbuf is always initialized if
copy_semid_from_user() returns 0.
setbuf is only initialized in the (cmd == IPC_SET) case and later only
used in the (cmd == IPC_SET) case. And cmd can't change between the two
occurences.
Therefore, gcc should in theory already have enough information to prove
that sembuf is always initialized before it's used.
> -- Steve
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-05-10 16:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-05-10 2:56 [PATCH -mm] sys_semctl gcc 4.1 warning fix Daniel Walker
2006-05-10 10:34 ` Alan Cox
2006-05-10 14:31 ` Daniel Walker
2006-05-10 15:09 ` Alan Cox
2006-05-10 15:06 ` Daniel Walker
2006-05-10 15:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-05-10 16:24 ` Adrian Bunk [this message]
2006-05-10 17:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-05-10 17:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-05-10 18:27 ` Stephen Hemminger
2006-05-10 19:07 ` Serge Belyshev
2006-05-10 20:24 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-05-10 20:35 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-05-10 20:36 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-05-10 20:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-05-10 19:20 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-05-10 19:49 ` Daniel Walker
2006-05-10 20:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-05-10 21:11 ` Daniel Walker
2006-05-10 21:20 ` Al Viro
2006-05-10 21:33 ` Daniel Walker
2006-05-10 21:39 ` Al Viro
2006-05-10 21:45 ` Daniel Walker
2006-05-10 21:48 ` Al Viro
2006-05-11 6:36 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-05-10 15:39 ` Alan Cox
2006-05-10 15:38 ` Daniel Walker
2006-05-10 16:21 ` Al Viro
2006-05-10 16:37 ` Daniel Walker
2006-05-10 16:42 ` Al Viro
2006-05-10 17:25 ` Daniel Walker
2006-05-10 19:55 ` Alistair John Strachan
2006-05-10 22:03 ` Andrew Morton
2006-05-10 22:10 ` Al Viro
2006-05-10 22:31 ` David S. Miller
2006-05-10 22:45 ` Al Viro
2006-05-10 23:05 ` Andrew Morton
2006-05-10 23:20 ` Al Viro
2006-05-10 23:45 ` Andrew Morton
2006-05-11 1:28 ` Al Viro
2006-05-11 8:11 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-05-11 10:07 ` [PATCH -mm] introduce a false positive macro Steven Rostedt
2006-05-11 20:40 ` [PATCH -mm] sys_semctl gcc 4.1 warning fix Adrian Bunk
2006-05-11 21:14 ` Al Viro
2006-05-10 23:06 ` Roland Dreier
2006-05-10 22:30 ` David S. Miller
2006-05-11 2:58 ` Mike Galbraith
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060510162404.GR3570@stusta.de \
--to=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=dwalker@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox