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 3B4D01F461 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 15:13:02 +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:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=gFLR mXR7f2CZ+IehENLD5gE08JTS9L0bHkI3xIWjxzN6RI5NYFtAlyZQK5eHtCOpWWrz UWMmWPqjOHv3OcXjRRG5odaMGLvDRHhhoIae/3qbbSZJeCPPUFUt+7BEDrZRZ0fk sswtdCM0/ndvjGz3YcJWZ27/OULW2HbEYmbwMqc= 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:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; s=default; bh=H+il3bmOYV x1mRKerqI+AIgcZzw=; b=YKRPPBaQLWou0zi20UKRgLDktCv0xftFmaiResGUbf jA3UrH4m3M8QGtr+mLkvMLGr3+Ll1sFw3mkJ8ewbpPfU8bGKfYWwZSRC8jd+k7kw IxSHmeCFJpeK8LIzvobDmvZXkA7w+J69ekPrpIJrJEmm8o8OrGLfURu0VitBgdqd 8= Received: (qmail 96618 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2019 15:13:00 -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 96608 invoked by uid 89); 5 Sep 2019 15:13:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: mailbackend.panix.com MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <871316fb87a99a59c31e6d3fbd4d35bff2ecc3c4.1567097252.git.alistair.francis@wdc.com> In-Reply-To: From: Zack Weinberg Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 11:12:43 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC v5 01/21] sunrpc/clnt_udp: Ensure total_deadline is initalised To: Joseph Myers Cc: Alistair Francis , Alistair Francis , GNU C Library , Arnd Bergmann , Adhemerval Zanella , Florian Weimer , Palmer Dabbelt , macro@wdc.com, Zong Li Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:03 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: > > > > > 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. Joseph, you have a tendency to throw up procedural objections to _everything_, and I feel I need to ask you to tone it down a little. This project has historically been perceived as unwelcoming to new contributors, and I think a major remaining reason for that is all the procedure -- some of which is genuinely necessary, but not all. > 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. In general I would agree, but this is the obsolete sunrpc directory we're talking about; I don't think it's worth putting more than the bare minimum effort into code that we plan to delete eventually. zw