From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E57D1F461 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:06:52 +0000 (UTC) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=SRXrnjXFY7epkOqJ cxN2fcQKhBdTLiecK5tGgE/NXwEDnRq8WWOKAaafw05yXTRkp7jYL3bWmWzlkBJZ T9ZOykuIwktq2IO/+6c0sh0E0qEG32qgifrlQmLNLrwXi6AKxyfqpZoK0HFv1NCq 2heotPhcyBxrC72j63JKQw3Lc7E= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=NOmPKwJVK89kpJ3pl66y3h As2mk=; b=ZT4+EX5rQpOcw8YSXC+J1a3+4oEQ1E274jeNwHQ4aZocWHtKVb0ScL D/APtnzYDxvIrlUECiYQyBJ1CGKB8oDPXGlbMGeeDprSKmfWz+ItZ/3QJ7dqdzYG Kv506goj+1q6fIv9ZUOXKLPSx9TDh6U73KcGeQnnTfG25eH094SbE= Received: (qmail 60290 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2019 15:06:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 59436 invoked by uid 89); 5 Sep 2019 15:06:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC v5 01/21] sunrpc/clnt_udp: Ensure total_deadline is initalised To: Alistair Francis Cc: Joseph Myers , Zack Weinberg , Alistair Francis , GNU C Library , Arnd Bergmann , Adhemerval Zanella , Florian Weimer , Palmer Dabbelt , macro@wdc.com, Zong Li References: <871316fb87a99a59c31e6d3fbd4d35bff2ecc3c4.1567097252.git.alistair.francis@wdc.com> From: Jeff Law Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: <7a91fbfd-2253-b3d3-105c-98a9003efcf1@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 09:06:42 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 9/5/19 9:02 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 5 Sep 2019, Alistair Francis wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:34 AM Zack Weinberg wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 1:22 PM Joseph Myers wrote: >>>> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019, Alistair Francis wrote: >>>> The long pole is definitely the ml2014 build environment, unless for some reason we need the new version of pip first? I don't actually know. I'm assu >>>>> Even though total_deadline won't be accessed uninitalised GCC can still >>>>> complain that it is accessed unitalised, to avod those errors let's make >>>>> sure we initalise it to 0. >>>> >>>> It's glibc practice (although missing from >>>> ) that we *don't* >>>> add initializations like that to avoid warnings. >>> >>> Although this has historically been glibc practice, I think it is >>> unwisely incautious, and we should change the policy to be that we >>> *do* add initializations whenever the compiler thinks a variable even >>> _might_ be used uninitialized. >> >> Does that mean this patch is ok? > > No. You can't deduce consensus like that from two different views on a > patch or a convention. Even if we were to change the convention regarding > how to silence such warnings, I see reason to have any less requirement > for comments explaining why the warning is a false positive and that the > initializer is only there to silence a warning than there is for the > DIAG_* macros. > BTW, has a bug been filed against GCC for the bogus warning? Jeff