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

Al Viro
2006-05-10T22:45:55Z

On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 03:31:29PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
> Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 23:10:24 +0100
>
> > But that's the argument in favour of using diff, not shutting the
> > bogus warnings up...
>
> IMHO, the tree should build with -Werror without exception.
> Once you have that basis, new ones will not show up easily
> and the hard part of the battle has been won.
>
> Yes, people will post a lot of bogus versions of warning fixes, but
> we're already good at flaming those off already :-)

Alternatively, gcc could get saner. Seriously, some very common patterns
trigger that shit - e.g. function that returns error or 0 and stores
value to *pointer_argument in case of success. It's a clear regression
in 4.x and IMO should be treated as gcc bug.