Searched hist:"78 a5255ffb6a1af189a83e493d916ba1c54d8c75" (Results 1 – 3 of 3) sorted by relevance
/openbmc/linux/kernel/trace/ |
H A D | Kconfig | 78a5255ffb6a1af189a83e493d916ba1c54d8c75 Sat May 09 15:57:10 CDT 2020 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Stop the ad-hoc games with -Wno-maybe-initialized
We have some rather random rules about when we accept the "maybe-initialized" warnings, and when we don't.
For example, we consider it unreliable for gcc versions < 4.9, but also if -O3 is enabled, or if optimizing for size. And then various kernel config options disabled it, because they know that they trigger that warning by confusing gcc sufficiently (ie PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES).
And now gcc-10 seems to be introducing a lot of those warnings too, so it falls under the same heading as 4.9 did.
At the same time, we have a very straightforward way to _enable_ that warning when wanted: use "W=2" to enable more warnings.
So stop playing these ad-hoc games, and just disable that warning by default, with the known and straight-forward "if you want to work on the extra compiler warnings, use W=123".
Would it be great to have code that is always so obvious that it never confuses the compiler whether a variable is used initialized or not? Yes, it would. In a perfect world, the compilers would be smarter, and our source code would be simpler.
That's currently not the world we live in, though.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
/openbmc/linux/init/ |
H A D | Kconfig | 78a5255ffb6a1af189a83e493d916ba1c54d8c75 Sat May 09 15:57:10 CDT 2020 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Stop the ad-hoc games with -Wno-maybe-initialized
We have some rather random rules about when we accept the "maybe-initialized" warnings, and when we don't.
For example, we consider it unreliable for gcc versions < 4.9, but also if -O3 is enabled, or if optimizing for size. And then various kernel config options disabled it, because they know that they trigger that warning by confusing gcc sufficiently (ie PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES).
And now gcc-10 seems to be introducing a lot of those warnings too, so it falls under the same heading as 4.9 did.
At the same time, we have a very straightforward way to _enable_ that warning when wanted: use "W=2" to enable more warnings.
So stop playing these ad-hoc games, and just disable that warning by default, with the known and straight-forward "if you want to work on the extra compiler warnings, use W=123".
Would it be great to have code that is always so obvious that it never confuses the compiler whether a variable is used initialized or not? Yes, it would. In a perfect world, the compilers would be smarter, and our source code would be simpler.
That's currently not the world we live in, though.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
/openbmc/linux/ |
H A D | Makefile | 78a5255ffb6a1af189a83e493d916ba1c54d8c75 Sat May 09 15:57:10 CDT 2020 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Stop the ad-hoc games with -Wno-maybe-initialized
We have some rather random rules about when we accept the "maybe-initialized" warnings, and when we don't.
For example, we consider it unreliable for gcc versions < 4.9, but also if -O3 is enabled, or if optimizing for size. And then various kernel config options disabled it, because they know that they trigger that warning by confusing gcc sufficiently (ie PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES).
And now gcc-10 seems to be introducing a lot of those warnings too, so it falls under the same heading as 4.9 did.
At the same time, we have a very straightforward way to _enable_ that warning when wanted: use "W=2" to enable more warnings.
So stop playing these ad-hoc games, and just disable that warning by default, with the known and straight-forward "if you want to work on the extra compiler warnings, use W=123".
Would it be great to have code that is always so obvious that it never confuses the compiler whether a variable is used initialized or not? Yes, it would. In a perfect world, the compilers would be smarter, and our source code would be simpler.
That's currently not the world we live in, though.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|