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

Daniel Walker
2006-05-10T21:33:45Z

On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 22:20 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:11:54PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Your vision is quite selective, then.
>
> > We are in complete agreement .. The only disadvantage is maybe we cover
> > up and real error
>
> ... which is more than enough to veto it. However, that is not all.
> 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 ..

Daniel