On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote: > > drivers/md/dm-exception-store.c: In function ‘persistent_read_metadata’: > > drivers/md/dm-exception-store.c:452: warning: ‘new_snapshot’ may be used > > uninitialized in this function > > > > drivers/md/dm-ioctl.c: In function ‘ctl_ioctl’: > > drivers/md/dm-ioctl.c:1407: warning: ‘param’ may be used uninitialized in > > this function > > > > [ For these, I'd like to especially add -- shame on you, gcc! ] > > > > drivers/md/dm-table.c: In function ‘dm_get_device’: > > drivers/md/dm-table.c:472: warning: ‘dev’ may be used uninitialized in this > > function > > > > are all verified to be bogus warnings. Let's shut them up. > > > > --- > > > > drivers/md/dm-exception-store.c | 3 ++- > > drivers/md/dm-ioctl.c | 2 +- > > drivers/md/dm-table.c | 2 +- > > 3 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletion(-) > > same comment as with the last uninit'd var patch: these markers should be > used sparingly. Try it on multiple compiler versions, see if it's a new > behavior. > > Quite realistically, you might actually be finding gcc bugs, Definitely -- a lot of these patches are purely a result of gcc's shoddy inadequacies. I do intend filing reports with gcc, however ... > implying the > proper path is to file a gcc bug report (and they are _very_ diligent about > handling these, its impressive) rather than to patch the Linux kernel. My experience (regarding gcc's diligence in dealing with bug reports) has been otherwise :-) Anyway, I once had a _very_ similar discussion with Andrew (regarding some other gcc bug) previously, and the (completely correct) point he made was that: firstly, there's no guarantee they'll get this sorted out asap, and even if they did, we'll still not be dropping support for older gcc versions anyway ...
