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 90EF61F461 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 00:47:15 +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=DkKt qgur+bynRasn77rwnUUxThymvJ+3qoveCamheofDioY44HSfatkYz1qTsDlIIZ99 t22POrk1QY5INLJQ9E3s2dvOqRPTAT3Edzr5FqkMJQqv9EHohRlvNZ8uEpol1oIm 56eRZrQeqOJF1tGhrpIHsAjO72PbFNERbt8sCBg= 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=un34JcdDLO OJY9t2j+NptTEyB6w=; b=xOZrwzjph7QiV1b5v1OflqYW0VCjnu9ecyIWrKHO2y RIIVl3VEKAi6kCHp+P+ZWZe3pKpxD9SeLDbQSIYQAz4qS1xHPhSSyXF8uD+iB0C8 TuQMTYg+ZuHbqjF2dpQ7pOSWT9Zmj19RBaTXNQqB+Hbc9emu8U2VfOSpVUIPtCSC Q= Received: (qmail 30958 invoked by alias); 6 Sep 2019 00:46:43 -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 30841 invoked by uid 89); 6 Sep 2019 00:46:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: mail-lf1-f65.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=PqemooF0K9HssUgYHyzSC3oRb17EVKDNuPihJrHodN4=; b=utOVqYgjxZitlL8Rq+pDopDh9MmlVGPprNZuyZaLhzQexfTscbq/52L1s9GY/MtTr0 MmxeLCWwYyf5CpYko7Goomv6HB/Y3zwYPC1uLA082ZZKGiabOmC5KUFYmKKSo9djSdwR RopZLWwGRfUxM6m+K+4HXV2kx5IDd2bO/A8dB64hUKrnGpgSTpNKzpCKOMPcalobXtsb 3wz9/i6S0Mq5X7e5NMVMJgx5n28v0/TYJ5t+85Gj3fv0xue0a2k7s4OFNuz40fx9+nKI IpFNgLyry57sAdwGSmASZGC5OtJdKSzX3hAaZqReFduavuy2wDaAbuqID95uI0OJnCTz kjjA== MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <871316fb87a99a59c31e6d3fbd4d35bff2ecc3c4.1567097252.git.alistair.francis@wdc.com> In-Reply-To: From: Alistair Francis Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 17:46:11 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC v5 01/21] sunrpc/clnt_udp: Ensure total_deadline is initalised To: Joseph Myers Cc: 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 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 - Add comments to the init explaining why I am setting it - Use the DIAG_* macros Alistair > > -- > Joseph S. Myers > joseph@codesourcery.com