On 2/11/16, Jeff Merkey <linux....@gmail.com> wrote: >> In your case, for example, I looked through several dozen warnings, >> and they were ***all*** bogus. Keep in mind that this might make me >> less inclined to pay attention to complaints from you in the future. >> The story of the buy who cried wolf too often comes to mind. >> >> Perhaps you could actually take a close look at the warnings, before >> you fire off an e-mail? If at least one of the warnings were valid >> and pointed at an actual bug, it wouldn't have been a complete waste >> of my time.... >> > > I did take a close look at some of them (I reviewed them in assembler > -- probably a closer look than you gave them) and it was somewhat > confusing since the compiler was outputing jmp labels in the wrong > places in the code after I removed the calls to unreachable(). > > Ted, that's the problem with sitting around looking at C code all day > trying to find bugs created by the linux macros with assembler output > that does not map precisely to the C code. I discovered this grepping > around in the assembler output of these macro H libs. >
In other words folks who sit around staring at C code all day looking for bugs instead of looking at what the compiler output in assembler are not going to have a clue as to what is busted in their C code. I worked on a bug for days with tglx that turned out to be a stupid signed variable declaration outputing a sar instruction instead of a shr. 6 years it was in linux and all the code reviews failed to catch it. An assembly language debugger went right to it and it was nailed shortly thereafter. Of course I had to endure lashing comments from several folks who were in denial mode and wouldn't accept a simple patch to just fix the damn thing -- finally someone reported it on sparc and it got fixed -- amazing. Jeff
