Re: [PATCH -mm] sys_semctl gcc 4.1 warning fix

[Daniel Walker]

On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 16:44 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2006, Daniel Walker wrote:
> 
> >
> > There's no code increase when you init something to itself . I could
> > convert all the instance of the warning, that I've investigated, to a
> > system like this . I think it would be a benefit so we could clearly
> > identify any new warnings added over time, and quiet the ones we know
> > aren't real errors .
> >
> > However, from all the responses I'd imagine a patch like this wouldn't
> > get accepted ..
> >
> 
> I really don't see why it couldn't be added.  What's the problem with it?
> 
> I mean, I see lots of advantages, and really no disadvantages.

We are in complete agreement .. The only disadvantage is maybe we cover
up and real error , but that seems pretty unlikely .. Maybe I'll get
motivated while your sleeping ..

Daniel


-
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/