On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 07:25:16PM +0000, Burton, Ross wrote:
> Can we *please* start sending these upstream. It's not like the
> maintainer isn't responsive.
This would also help to get such patches properly reviewed.
> Ross
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 19:20, Joe Slater <joe.sla...@windriver.com> wrote:
>...
> > +The compiler does not realize that we must go through the while()
> > +loop at least once, so we replace it with a for() loop.
>...
> > +- n = t->root;
> > +- while (n) {
> > ++ /*
> > ++ * We know t->root is not NULL. The logic
> > ++ * to break out of this is at the end of the loop.
> > ++ */
> > ++ for (n = t->root;;) {
>...
This is the second patch this week where I don't see why a "fix" should
make any difference.
The code immediately above is:
if (t->root == NULL) {
...
return orig_e;
)
The submitter did not provide information how to reproduce,
but when I try to reproduce the problem on amd64 it happens
only with -Og (due to puzzles upstream building with -Werror).
This would also explain why such patches suddenly start getting
submitted - 2 weeks ago DEBUG_OPTIMIZATION was changed from -O to -Og.
-Werror is added after the passed CFLAGS so adding -Wno-error globally
would not help here, but a non-upstreamable patch to remove the -Werror
looks more correct here as a short-term workaround.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
