This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC v5 01/21] sunrpc/clnt_udp: Ensure total_deadline is initalised
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Alistair Francis <alistair23 at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>, Alistair Francis <alistair dot francis at wdc dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb dot de>, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at sifive dot com>, macro at wdc dot com, Zong Li <zongbox at gmail dot com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 09:06:42 -0600
- Subject: Re: [RFC v5 01/21] sunrpc/clnt_udp: Ensure total_deadline is initalised
- References: <cover.1567097252.git.alistair.francis@wdc.com> <871316fb87a99a59c31e6d3fbd4d35bff2ecc3c4.1567097252.git.alistair.francis@wdc.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908291721250.4240@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CAKCAbMjmQaFTJ3NskTttrVPoSb-OmLJok1+Qe5hwaXa3VSpwXg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKmqyKMTG8kWkjJ2+OWY3kxOch45Qg4sVfcfA719djCfyrGuWg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1909051458000.25305@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
On 9/5/19 9:02 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Alistair Francis wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:34 AM Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 1:22 PM Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019, Alistair Francis wrote:
>>>> The long pole is definitely the ml2014 build environment, unless for some reason we need the new version of pip first? I don't actually know. I'm assu
>>>>> Even though total_deadline won't be accessed uninitalised GCC can still
>>>>> complain that it is accessed unitalised, to avod those errors let's make
>>>>> sure we initalise it to 0.
>>>>
>>>> It's glibc practice (although missing from
>>>> <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Style_and_Conventions>) that we *don't*
>>>> add initializations like that to avoid warnings.
>>>
>>> Although this has historically been glibc practice, I think it is
>>> unwisely incautious, and we should change the policy to be that we
>>> *do* add initializations whenever the compiler thinks a variable even
>>> _might_ be used uninitialized.
>>
>> Does that mean this patch is ok?
>
> No. You can't deduce consensus like that from two different views on a
> patch or a convention. Even if we were to change the convention regarding
> how to silence such warnings, I see reason to have any less requirement
> for comments explaining why the warning is a false positive and that the
> initializer is only there to silence a warning than there is for the
> DIAG_* macros.
>
BTW, has a bug been filed against GCC for the bogus warning?
Jeff