>>> On 23.01.15 at 10:54, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 08:25:38AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: >> At least some gcc versions - validly afaict - warn about potentially >> using max_group uninitialized: There's no way the compiler can prove >> that the body of the conditional where it and max_faults get set/ >> updated gets executed; in fact, without knowing all the details of >> other scheduler code, I can't prove this either. >> >> Generally the necessary change would appear to be to clear max_group >> prior to entering the inner loop, and break out of the outer loop when >> it ends up being all clear after the inner one. This, however, seems >> inefficient, and afaict the same effect can be achieved by exiting the >> outer loop when max_faults is still zero after the inner loop. For the >> compiler's sake, mark max_group uninitialized, as we're now able to >> prove it's not actually being used uninitalized anymore. > > > Yes this is somewhat challenging. What compiler version in specific did > you get this warning wiht? I cannot remember seeing it with whatever it > is I use (4.7-4.9 it seems).
SLE11 SP3's gcc (4.3.4 based). Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
