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

[Al Viro]

On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:11:54PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > 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.

Your vision is quite selective, then.
 
> We are in complete agreement .. The only disadvantage is maybe we cover
> up and real error

... which is more than enough to veto it.  However, that is not all.
Consider the following scenario:

1) gcc gives false positive
2) tosser on a rampage "fixes" it
3) code is chaged a month later
4) a real bug is introduced - one that would be _really_ visible to gcc,
with "is used" in a warning
5) thanks to aforementioned tosser, that bug remains hidden.

And that's besides making code uglier for no good reason, etc.

Consider that preemptively NAKed.
-
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/