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

Daniel Walker
2006-05-10T21:11:58Z

On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 16:44 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2006, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> >
> > There's no code increase when you init something to itself . I could
> > convert all the instance of the warning, that I've investigated, to a
> > system like this . I think it would be a benefit so we could clearly
> > identify any new warnings added over time, and quiet the ones we know
> > aren't real errors .
> >
> > However, from all the responses I'd imagine a patch like this wouldn't
> > get accepted ..
> >
>
> I really don't see why it couldn't be added. What's the problem with it?
>
> I mean, I see lots of advantages, and really no disadvantages.

We are in complete agreement .. The only disadvantage is maybe we cover
up and real error , but that seems pretty unlikely .. Maybe I'll get
motivated while your sleeping ..

Daniel