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: Jeff Law <law at redhat 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 17:47:28 -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> <email@example.com> <alpine.DEB.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 8:22 AM Joseph Myers <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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
That is my understanding as well.
> /* 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
I was planning on adding a comment in the next version, let me know otherwise.
> Joseph S. Myers