Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> writes: > Sure. Fix it in GCC :) disable the bogus warning, whatever. I really really > hate pandering to broken tools, sending the message that it's ok for the > tools to be broken.
While I largely agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure I agree with what is a "broken tool". If a tool regularly catches real, nasty bugs and "fixing" the false positives have negligible cost, then I don't consider the tool broken. When it comes to the warning about uninitialized data, that seems to me a typical case of this. I haven't actually looked at the code in question, so maybe it is really painfully obvious that the uninitialized data would never be used. But even so, I think initializing variables is almost always "negligible cost", and I suspect this warning will often find real bugs that can be really hard to track down. The other warning about the ambiguity of "!a==b" I'm more doubtful about. eirik > On Jun 5, 2015 5:20 PM, "Martin Peres" <martin.pe...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > >> On 05/06/15 17:12, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> >>> >>> But if codegen fails, the code is never displayed as I recall. Again, >>> this I'd going from memory... >>> >>> >> Good memory. It looks ugly though. >> >> In general, I would still want to fix the warning because I hate needing >> to revert my patches to check if I introduced warnings or not. In this >> particular case it is probably OK because no-one will likely touch this >> file for the foreseeable future :) >> > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
