This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC v5 01/21] sunrpc/clnt_udp: Ensure total_deadline is initalised
- From: Alistair Francis <alistair23 at gmail dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: 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 17:46:11 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFC v5 01/21] sunrpc/clnt_udp: Ensure total_deadline is initalised
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <alpine.DEB.email@example.com> <CAKCAbMjmQaFTJ3NskTttrVPoSb-OmLJok1+Qe5hwaXa3VSpwXg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKmqyKMTG8kWkjJ2+OWY3kxOch45Qg4sVfcfA719djCfyrGuWg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 8:02 AM Joseph Myers <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Alistair Francis wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:34 AM Zack Weinberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 1:22 PM Joseph Myers <email@example.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.
No worries, I'll happily change the patch, I just want to make sure I
change it to the right thing.
- Investigate filing a GCC bug for this false positive
- Add comments to the init explaining why I am setting it
- Use the DIAG_* macros
> Joseph S. Myers