Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [2.6.19 PATCH 4/7] ehea: ethtool interface | From | Michael Ellerman <> | Date | Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:41:27 +1000 |
| |
On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 02:48 -0400, Andy Gay wrote: > On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 16:18 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > > > If you try to return an uninitialized value the compiler will warn you, > > you'll then look at the code and realise you missed a case, you might > > save yourself a bug. > > You *should* look at the code :) > > So should we be reporting these as bugs?
No you're better off sending patches ;)
A lot of these have started appearing recently, which I think is due to GCC becoming more vocal. Unfortunately many of them are false positives caused by GCC not seeming to grok that this is ok:
void foo(int *x) { *x = 1; } ... int x; foo(&x); return x;
It's a pity because it creates noise, but still it's beside the point.
New code going into the kernel should be 100% warning free, and so if the eHEA guys had missed an error case they'd spot the warning before they submitted it.
Doing the initialise-to-some-value "trick" means you only spot the bug via testing.
cheers
-- Michael Ellerman IBM OzLabs
wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183)
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |