On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:

quoted text
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > drivers/md/dm-exception-store.c: In function $B!F(Jpersistent_read_metadata$B!G(J:
> > drivers/md/dm-exception-store.c:452: warning: $B!F(Jnew_snapshot$B!G(J may be used
> > uninitialized in this function
> > 
> > drivers/md/dm-ioctl.c: In function $B!F(Jctl_ioctl$B!G(J:
> > drivers/md/dm-ioctl.c:1407: warning: $B!F(Jparam$B!G(J may be used uninitialized in
> > this function
> > 
> > [ For these, I'd like to especially add -- shame on you, gcc! ]
> > 
> > drivers/md/dm-table.c: In function $B!F(Jdm_get_device$B!G(J:
> > drivers/md/dm-table.c:472: warning: $B!F(Jdev$B!G(J may be used uninitialized in this
> > function
> > 
> > are all verified to be bogus warnings. Let's shut them up.
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> >  drivers/md/dm-exception-store.c |    3 ++-
> >  drivers/md/dm-ioctl.c |    2 +-
> >  drivers/md/dm-table.c |    2 +-
> >  3 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletion(-)
> 
> same comment as with the last uninit'd var patch:  these markers should be
> used sparingly.  Try it on multiple compiler versions, see if it's a new
> behavior.
> 
> Quite realistically, you might actually be finding gcc bugs,

Definitely -- a lot of these patches are purely a result of gcc's shoddy
inadequacies. I do intend filing reports with gcc, however ...

quoted text
> implying the
> proper path is to file a gcc bug report (and they are _very_ diligent about
> handling these, its impressive) rather than to patch the Linux kernel.

My experience (regarding gcc's diligence in dealing with bug reports) has
been otherwise :-)

Anyway, I once had a _very_ similar discussion with Andrew (regarding some
other gcc bug) previously, and the (completely correct) point he made was
that: firstly, there's no guarantee they'll get this sorted out asap, and
even if they did, we'll still not be dropping support for older gcc
versions anyway ...