This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC v5 01/21] sunrpc/clnt_udp: Ensure total_deadline is initalised


On 9/5/19 6:46 PM, Alistair Francis wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 8:02 AM Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> 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.
> 
> No worries, I'll happily change the patch, I just want to make sure I
> change it to the right thing.
> 
> I'll:
>  - Investigate filing a GCC bug for this false positive
All we need is the .i file (Add -save-temps to the compilation line), a
copy of the full compilation line and the target triplet.  No need to
try and create a minimal testcase or anything like that.

Jeff


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]