On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:12:24AM +0100, Vincent Stehlé wrote:
> If you mean "am I sure the loop iterates at least once", then yes, as
> we have an explicit check just before the concerned list_for_each_entry():
So, I hadn't realised this was triggered by a new compiler version -
Arnd just tried
On 01/23/2013 04:58 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:07:04AM +0100, Vincent Stehlé wrote:
>
>> Do you think there is a way to "mark" the list_for_each_entry()
>> as iterating at least once? an __attribute__ maybe?
>
> No - but are you sure that's true?
If you mean "am I sure th
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:07:04AM +0100, Vincent Stehlé wrote:
> Do you think there is a way to "mark" the list_for_each_entry() as
> iterating at least once? an __attribute__ maybe?
No - but are you sure that's true?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 01/22/2013 07:41 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
(..)
> This sort of fix is not a good idea, you're just shutting the
> warning up without any sort of analysis explaining why it's
> generated in error. If it's generating a spurious error that's a
> compiler bug.
In the regmap_debugfs_get_dump_start() fu
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 03:36:55PM +0100, Vincent Stehlé wrote:
> This fixes the following compilation warning:
> - unsigned int i, ret;
> + unsigned int i, ret = 0;
This sort of fix is not a good idea, you're just shutting the warning up
without any sort of analysis explaining why it's g
5 matches
Mail list logo
