On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:08:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Let me try to get to the bottom of this, maybe we can get the warning
> back in the future. It has found a number of actual bugs. The majority
> of -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings that I fixed in linux-next were
> false positives (maybe four out of five) but I would think the reason
So this is exactly the problem: we should not fix perfectly fine code
just so that gcc remains quiet. So when you say "fixed false positives"
you actually mean, "changed it so that gcc -Wmaybe-u... doesn't fire"
right?
And we should not do that.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
