From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Announce: gcc bogus warning repository
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:45:28 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <45200CC8.2030404@garzik.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1159727188.24767.9.camel@c-67-180-230-165.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 14:16 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> The downsides are that it muckies up the source a little and introduces a
>>> very small risk that real use-uninitialised bugs will be hidden. But I
>>> believe the benefit outweighs those disadvantages.
>> How about just marking the ones I've already done in #gccbug?
>>
>> If I'm taking the time to audit the code, and separate out bogosities
>> from real bugs, it would be nice not to see that effort wasted.
>
> There was a long thread on this, it's not about anyone not reviewing the
> code properly when the warning is first silenced. It's that future
> changes might create new problems that are also silenced. I don't think
> it's a huge concern, especially since there's was a config option to
> turn the warning backs on.
That doesn't address my question at all.
If there is no difference between real non-init bugs and bogus warnings,
then a config option doesn't make any difference at all, does it? Real
bugs are still hidden either way: if the warnings are turned on, the
bugs are lost in the noise. if the warnings are turned off, the bugs
are completely hidden.
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-10-01 18:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-10-01 13:44 Announce: gcc bogus warning repository Jeff Garzik
2006-10-01 13:56 ` Al Viro
2006-10-01 15:40 ` Daniel Walker
2006-10-01 18:12 ` Andrew Morton
2006-10-01 18:16 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-10-01 18:26 ` Daniel Walker
2006-10-01 18:45 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2006-10-01 18:58 ` Daniel Walker
2006-10-01 19:00 ` Al Viro
2006-10-01 19:03 ` Daniel Walker
2006-10-01 19:07 ` Al Viro
2006-10-01 19:13 ` Daniel Walker
2006-10-01 19:20 ` Al Viro
2006-10-01 19:25 ` Daniel Walker
2006-10-01 19:33 ` Al Viro
2006-10-01 21:45 ` Andrew Morton
2006-10-01 20:24 ` Roland Dreier
2006-10-02 11:39 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2006-10-01 17:07 ` Randy Dunlap
2006-10-01 17:20 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-10-01 17:27 ` Alistair John Strachan
2006-10-01 17:45 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-10-01 18:16 ` Randy Dunlap
2006-10-04 16:19 ` Jörn Engel
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=45200CC8.2030404@garzik.org \
--to=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=dwalker@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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