Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:56:26 +0100 | From | "Jesper Juhl" <> | Subject | Re: Building 100 kernels; we suck at dependencies and drown in warnings |
| |
On 2/26/06, Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> wrote: > On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 22:49 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > On 2/26/06, Nix <nix@esperi.org.uk> wrote: > > > (i.e., there's a reason that warning uses the word *might*.) > > > > > The compiler says "might be used uninitialized" when it cannot > > determine if a variable will be initialized before first use or not. > > Quoting the "silence gcc warning" thread: > > "Really, this is a gcc bug. My version of the compiler: > > gcc version 4.0.3 20051201 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.2-5) > > Doesn't give this warning. And, since the loop has fixed parameters, > gcc should see not only that it's always executed, but that it could be > unrolled." > Yeah so gcc is not perfect, but that still doesn't change that the intention of the warning and the use of the word "might" is as I said above.
-- Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |