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: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Alistair Francis <alistair23 at gmail 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 15:21:58 +0000
- Subject: Re: [RFC v5 01/21] sunrpc/clnt_udp: Ensure total_deadline is initalised
- Ironport-sdr: qE3s5CFtqKLg+9q1F7KTYXdwBdS480FV+qgxfNsGPSnjkDjMPVvilF8NIYSIRpULecxyZfeJX+ HvhZQzyM19E8pGf+Aq+XMdwzVynGPxJ9XVodn4Kk6shNZACScNnOc46XBn1zlNs3qqU9E68b7s UWzxlOVvEaVJ9oJ7fqHqCP/L/PS1f7yDF8MGC322XskqxMdNp/JWjt0NXoKnxr8GXw1VVNrWIY JezNzRpIlSt7u+wt/eCc4Lom6YiqGdWTuq7uD2Df1s/N9tntUqQ+6FLkQBjQ4v4Xe4d+LqV3t2 fQA=
- Ironport-sdr: 8K7buuW08kVnI2y5STX5X65eUbrepQr8b31i3m5MZXYzBgnv32JFT59+WmAup1JH8e4wND2PCE N979LRjYPR4MVb4dd3vpI8L7Ik2r33oDvh+jwDZaoiQQJy59W4aBfxmAh2vpB6jaDpSd+4UBnM 8vLfAk7V2R1SVzHnyCo3GjiT93p8IzU4CG5pfPTg/XtxMcP048mWoyPrGKRX5NnNc/poRGRKSR XWQIq0E991TK/5upn5NYw561LV0qerBc4dbV28ZLLEr9gB9k+jJOueB9Qo49YZPH8MzIr2A1BP e8M=
- 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> <7a91fbfd-2253-b3d3-105c-98a9003efcf1@redhat.com>
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Jeff Law wrote:
> BTW, has a bug been filed against GCC for the bogus warning?
In this case, it looks like the code is
if (xargs != NULL)
{
total_deadline = ...
}
...
if (xargs != NULL)
{
use total_deadline
}
(and xargs doesn't get modified in the function and the various gotos in
this function are all after that setting of total_deadline). So that
should be a known issue (and we could consider if the existing comment
/* Choose the timeout value. For non-sending usage (xargs == NULL),
the total deadline does not matter, only cu->cu_wait is used
below. */
is sufficient or should be extended to say explicitly the warning is
bogus).
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com