diff options
author | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | 2020-05-09 13:57:10 -0700 |
---|---|---|
committer | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | 2020-05-09 13:57:10 -0700 |
commit | 78a5255ffb6a1af189a83e493d916ba1c54d8c75 (patch) | |
tree | ff0c8ef475d1a5921fa761a96f01582a444fef0d /Documentation/virt/kvm | |
parent | 1d3962ae3b3d3a945f7fd5c651cf170a27521a35 (diff) | |
download | linux-78a5255ffb6a1af189a83e493d916ba1c54d8c75.tar.bz2 |
Stop the ad-hoc games with -Wno-maybe-initialized
We have some rather random rules about when we accept the
"maybe-initialized" warnings, and when we don't.
For example, we consider it unreliable for gcc versions < 4.9, but also
if -O3 is enabled, or if optimizing for size. And then various kernel
config options disabled it, because they know that they trigger that
warning by confusing gcc sufficiently (ie PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES).
And now gcc-10 seems to be introducing a lot of those warnings too, so
it falls under the same heading as 4.9 did.
At the same time, we have a very straightforward way to _enable_ that
warning when wanted: use "W=2" to enable more warnings.
So stop playing these ad-hoc games, and just disable that warning by
default, with the known and straight-forward "if you want to work on the
extra compiler warnings, use W=123".
Would it be great to have code that is always so obvious that it never
confuses the compiler whether a variable is used initialized or not?
Yes, it would. In a perfect world, the compilers would be smarter, and
our source code would be simpler.
That's currently not the world we live in, though.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/virt/kvm')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions