Re: [PATCH -mm] sys_semctl gcc 4.1 warning fix

Daniel Walker
2006-05-10T21:46:00Z

On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 22:39 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:33:42PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > Consider the following scenario:
> > >
> > > 1) gcc gives false positive
> > > 2) tosser on a rampage "fixes" it
> > > 3) code is chaged a month later
> > > 4) a real bug is introduced - one that would be _really_ visible to gcc,
> > > with "is used" in a warning
> > > 5) thanks to aforementioned tosser, that bug remains hidden.
> >
> > I don't really see anything new here .. The same sort of stuff can
> > happen in any code considered for inclusion .. That's what the review
> > process is for .
> >
> > Real errors can be covered up any number of way ..
>
> One last time: your kind of patches actually increases the odds of new bug
> staying unnoticed.

Your using kind of a broad brush .. What do you mean "your kind of
patches" ?

> If you really fill the urge to pull a Bunk, do it somewhere else, please -
> the real thing is already more than sufficiently annoying.

Huh ?

Daniel