Re: Announce: gcc bogus warning repository

[Jeff Garzik]

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



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/