This is the mail archive of the 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 Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Alistair Francis wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:34 AM Zack Weinberg <> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 1:22 PM Joseph Myers <> 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
> > > <>) 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.

Joseph S. Myers

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