Re: 2.6.14 assorted warnings

[Al Viro]

On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 07:59:54AM +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
> And on an philosophical plane, can/should we put that responsibility onto 
> the compiler? Is it not "easier" to make the functions take care
> of its own duties (like the *nix-way) and make the bvec_alloc_bs initialize 
> idx (even if it has to be an error-value)?
> 
> I'm thinking something like this. Seems alright?

No.  Working around the false positives in compiler warning system is
*wrong*.  _IF_ it cares to inline the function and generate the
warnings based on that, it is responsible for doing it right.

It's a gcc bug, plain and simple.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/