From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Laxl2-0007HC-IK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 14:43:28 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Laxl1-0007Fj-W3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 14:43:28 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40566 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Laxl1-0007FR-LT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 14:43:27 -0500 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.157]:1093) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Laxl1-0000dU-6F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 14:43:27 -0500 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e21so1873028fga.8 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:43:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090221190054.12485.30486.stgit@mchn012c.ww002.siemens.net> References: <20090221190054.12485.30486.stgit@mchn012c.ww002.siemens.net> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:43:24 +0100 Message-ID: <761ea48b0902211143x3f791ca8k5e6d0709076ce009@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/7] clean build - eliminate warnings From: Laurent Desnogues Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org 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 cosmetic > 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 almost: > > Warning summary for 2009-02-21 (changes since 2009-02-21-base) > generic 0 (-1) > softmmu 0 (-39) > x86 0 (0) > arm 0 (-10) This means that after applying your patch there should be no more warning for the ARM target? On my machine (x86_64, gcc 4.1.2), I still get these: CC arm-softmmu/neon_helper.o /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c: In function =91helper_neon_rshl_s8=92: /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c:469: warning: =91vdest.v1=92 is used uninitialized in this function /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c:469: warning: =91vdest.v2=92 is used uninitialized in this function /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c:469: warning: =91vdest.v3=92 is used uninitialized in this function /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c:469: warning: =91vdest.v4=92 is used uninitialized in this function /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c: In function =91helper_neon_rshl_s16=92: /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c:470: warning: =91vdest.v1=92 is used uninitialized in this function /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c:470: warning: =91vdest.v2=92 is used uninitialized in this function /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c: In function =91helper_neon_rshl_s32=92: /home/ldesnogu/work/Emu/qemu/svn-ref/target-arm/neon_helper.c:471: warning: =91vdest.v1=92 is used uninitialized in this function Note a patch has been proposed in the past (by Aur=E9lien IIRC). Laurent