From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lb0o4-0001XN-KS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:58:48 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lb0o2-0001X7-CM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:58:47 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49416 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lb0o2-0001X4-9u for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:58:46 -0500 Received: from bart.se.axis.com ([195.60.68.10]:55174) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lb0o1-0005bb-PH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:58:46 -0500 Received: from bart.se.axis.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bart.se.axis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB72B63FFC for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:58:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from axis.com (edgar.se.axis.com [10.93.151.1]) by bart.se.axis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D71D563FF4 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:58:43 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:59:04 +0100 From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/7] clean build - eliminate warnings Message-ID: <20090222005904.GA16651@edgar.se.axis.com> References: <20090221190054.12485.30486.stgit@mchn012c.ww002.siemens.net> <761ea48b0902211143x3f791ca8k5e6d0709076ce009@mail.gmail.com> <49A05F5D.6070903@web.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49A05F5D.6070903@web.de> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 09:09:01PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Laurent Desnogues wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote= : > >> When working on larger or intrusive changes like the monitor rework,= the > >> number of warnings a normal build generates (here: x86-64 host, gcc = 4.3) > >> is still too high. And sometimes these warnings are not just of cosm= etic > >> nature, see (reposted) patch 3. > >> > >> This series reduces the number of warnings significantly, still not = to > >> zero (someone would have to look into the NetWinder stuff), but almo= st: > >> > >> Warning summary for 2009-02-21 (changes since 2009-02-21-base) > >> generic 0 (-1) > >> softmmu 0 (-39) > >> x86 0 (0) > >> arm 0 (-10) > >=20 > > This means that after applying your patch there should be no more > > warning for the ARM target? >=20 > At least for softmmu, at least with my compiler (depending on the > precise version / distro patches, you may have different warnings > enabled by default): yes. >=20 > >=20 > > On my machine (x86_64, gcc 4.1.2), I still get these: > >=20 > > CC arm-softmmu/neon_helper.o > > /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c: In > > function ?helper_neon_rshl_s8?: > > /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c:469: > > warning: ?vdest.v1? is used uninitialized in this function > > /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c:469: > > warning: ?vdest.v2? is used uninitialized in this function > > /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c:469: > > warning: ?vdest.v3? is used uninitialized in this function > > /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c:469: > > warning: ?vdest.v4? is used uninitialized in this function > > /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c: In > > function ?helper_neon_rshl_s16?: > > /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c:470: > > warning: ?vdest.v1? is used uninitialized in this function > > /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c:470: > > warning: ?vdest.v2? is used uninitialized in this function > > /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c: In > > function ?helper_neon_rshl_s32?: > > /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c:471: > > warning: ?vdest.v1? is used uninitialized in this function >=20 > Has this been identified as a real issue or just compiler blindness (my > series contains one "fix" for such blindness, see cris patch)? I'm Sorry, I missed any posted CRIS patch. Please post it again if you have one and please CC me and I'll apply it if I agree with it. Sorry if I missed your email. Best regards, Edgar > currently a bit lost in those macros... >=20 > >=20 > > Note a patch has been proposed in the past (by Aur=E9lien IIRC). >=20 > Do you have a reference at hand? >=20 > Jan >=20