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=-2.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,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 CEC661F463 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 21:41:02 +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=rFkr f1hCafEwMxaOIXp1a62FCF8o3/I/WuG5M+acC1GN6+L/a6Z7ehAX6vZOXFygHsHE MYq/mVsTAlaAa+0aTfDahl6kQfCdufLL5zGbi9rBHp+VHhAoYMu4Aw82NhWnp7nF hPnGo66u5ugBUDezFi3fg3DI5KKB2UFw1nBydmc= 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=vW6C6Il0kD K3CcgYzhBJ2cprd1o=; b=giyJ2w73DK2r4fsUztDtEgoz58eKN+PCjEeLfOYL6h IOrYTuZLW3M++/WqGONuf7fH6PmfTSM1Ax7AqN2e3xAh9PUsC8ht/VjZgT4qZfeh xSpzLOGxKAwo1+YITEhSo1mIRCqAqyKVM5JWs/9WLlUdl44vI6R1xtA5YlTOvVvQ w= Received: (qmail 24518 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2019 21:41:00 -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 24508 invoked by uid 89); 16 Sep 2019 21:41:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: mail-lj1-f195.google.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5yiS8xULflwIm+No6nvtuGytgo9oBfRFapDGyX9xU5w=; b=kNtJnvZKfsmYeKWIcnDbwf7aTNhtcYx9Cg1ApavXGb3f3uAvYMo+0ZCNe7rQVaj6Ut sq8th/Nt4mCE76UUzXmVcr+sjTIiQ2ey8IU5tB7hdTWCmAbrdoD0hfaXiFvcOyA7HsXa 1ab1isEWdVCATq+KnBp0hYvLSDNy7MoSgKOZfm1tez/nlddYVjHmuG7xKGYiOgJQ5K+J 3pKtxpDOKC5Qu5U4eo17J429Gk1HUBXyWbdtVAPU4OiRymMOB+yJR9HTP0DVvrResaaK p52nS9AX+r8pWEGvymPe8IgL562EH8dU6Hethio8lM5hkgt9uXYlXkUcfEdoKrWkMiRs JkSA== MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <871316fb87a99a59c31e6d3fbd4d35bff2ecc3c4.1567097252.git.alistair.francis@wdc.com> <96a29fc4-5415-d084-c600-e3d8aadcc545@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <96a29fc4-5415-d084-c600-e3d8aadcc545@redhat.com> From: Alistair Francis Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:36:25 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC v5 01/21] sunrpc/clnt_udp: Ensure total_deadline is initalised To: Jeff Law Cc: Joseph Myers , Zack Weinberg , 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 6:31 PM Jeff Law wrote: > > On 9/5/19 6:46 PM, Alistair Francis wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 8:02 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. > > > > No worries, I'll happily change the patch, I just want to make sure I > > change it to the right thing. > > > > I'll: > > - Investigate filing a GCC bug for this false positive > All we need is the .i file (Add -save-temps to the compilation line), a > copy of the full compilation line and the target triplet. No need to > try and create a minimal testcase or anything like that. Thanks for that info. I have filed the bug: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91691 I'll send this patch out separately and we can go from there. Alistair > > Jeff