On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 11:57:36AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> 2) I hope to send in a second path shortly, changing 'num' to size_t. My
> main doubt is whether its problematic that the loop index in
> regmap_volatile_range() uses unsigned int too. If 'num' would exceed
> UINT_MAX, that loop would
On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 11:57:36AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
2) I hope to send in a second path shortly, changing 'num' to size_t. My
main doubt is whether its problematic that the loop index in
regmap_volatile_range() uses unsigned int too. If 'num' would exceed
UINT_MAX, that loop would
On Sat, 2012-10-06 at 09:53 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:20:44PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:23:36 +0200, Paul Bolle said:
> > > That is another way to silence GCC here.
>
> > That's probably a preferable approach - that way, if a
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:20:44PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:23:36 +0200, Paul Bolle said:
> > That is another way to silence GCC here.
> That's probably a preferable approach - that way, if a bogus val_count gets
> passed in, the caller will be informed of
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:20:44PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:23:36 +0200, Paul Bolle said:
That is another way to silence GCC here.
That's probably a preferable approach - that way, if a bogus val_count gets
passed in, the caller will be informed of the
On Sat, 2012-10-06 at 09:53 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:20:44PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:23:36 +0200, Paul Bolle said:
That is another way to silence GCC here.
That's probably a preferable approach - that way, if a bogus
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:23:36 +0200, Paul Bolle said:
> By the way, GCC doesn't warn if I add an early check whether 'val_count'
> is non-zero:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c b/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c
> index c241ae2..d41527b 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c
> +++
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:23:36 +0200, Paul Bolle said:
By the way, GCC doesn't warn if I add an early check whether 'val_count'
is non-zero:
diff --git a/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c b/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c
index c241ae2..d41527b 100644
--- a/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c
+++
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 09:23:36AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 20:11 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:03:21 +0100, Mark Brown said:
> > > > That implies that 'ret' will be set in the if-branch. ('val_count' could
> > > > be zero if 'val_len'
On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 20:11 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:03:21 +0100, Mark Brown said:
> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:15:55PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > > Building regmap.o triggers this GCC warning:
> > > drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c: In function
On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 20:11 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:03:21 +0100, Mark Brown said:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:15:55PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
Building regmap.o triggers this GCC warning:
drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c: In function regmap_raw_read:
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 09:23:36AM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 20:11 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:03:21 +0100, Mark Brown said:
That implies that 'ret' will be set in the if-branch. ('val_count' could
be zero if 'val_len' is, for
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:03:21 +0100, Mark Brown said:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:15:55PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > Building regmap.o triggers this GCC warning:
> > drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c: In function âregmap_raw_readâ:
> > drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c:1172:6: warning:
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 11:03:21 +0100, Mark Brown said:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:15:55PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
Building regmap.o triggers this GCC warning:
drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c: In function âregmap_raw_readâ:
drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c:1172:6: warning: âretâ may
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 09:08:57PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> from cached registers"). The first release shipping that commit was
> v3.4. The log of a build of v3.4 using the oldest version of GCC (that
> Fedora used to build v3.4) I could find also contains this warning [0].
> They used
On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 12:39 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> I assume this is a regression they've introduced in 4.7.
For what it's worth, GCC 4.6 apparently shows identical behavior.
The code that triggers this warning was (basically) introduced in commit
b8fb5ab156055b745254609f4635fcfd6b7dabc8
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 12:32:57PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 11:19 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I haven't actually stared hard enough at the code to figure this out
> > yet but given what you're changing I'd hope it's a flow analysis bug.
> > I'm certainly not seeing a
On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 11:19 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> I haven't actually stared hard enough at the code to figure this out
> yet but given what you're changing I'd hope it's a flow analysis bug.
> I'm certainly not seeing a warning here.
Well, you may be using another version of gcc, or using
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 12:16:46PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 11:03 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Have you reported this bug in GCC?
> No I haven't. Since you ask, I guess you too think 'ret' is always set
> when this function returns, don't you? Ie, my analysis isn't
On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 11:03 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:15:55PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > Building regmap.o triggers this GCC warning:
> > drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c: In function ‘regmap_raw_read’:
> > drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c:1172:6: warning: ‘ret’ may
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:15:55PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> Building regmap.o triggers this GCC warning:
> drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c: In function ‘regmap_raw_read’:
> drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c:1172:6: warning: ‘ret’ may be used
> uninitialized in this function
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:15:55PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
Building regmap.o triggers this GCC warning:
drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c: In function ‘regmap_raw_read’:
drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c:1172:6: warning: ‘ret’ may be used
uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 11:03 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:15:55PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
Building regmap.o triggers this GCC warning:
drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c: In function ‘regmap_raw_read’:
drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c:1172:6: warning: ‘ret’ may be used
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 12:16:46PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 11:03 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
Have you reported this bug in GCC?
No I haven't. Since you ask, I guess you too think 'ret' is always set
when this function returns, don't you? Ie, my analysis isn't obviously
On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 11:19 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
I haven't actually stared hard enough at the code to figure this out
yet but given what you're changing I'd hope it's a flow analysis bug.
I'm certainly not seeing a warning here.
Well, you may be using another version of gcc, or using
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 12:32:57PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 11:19 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
I haven't actually stared hard enough at the code to figure this out
yet but given what you're changing I'd hope it's a flow analysis bug.
I'm certainly not seeing a warning
On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 12:39 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
I assume this is a regression they've introduced in 4.7.
For what it's worth, GCC 4.6 apparently shows identical behavior.
The code that triggers this warning was (basically) introduced in commit
b8fb5ab156055b745254609f4635fcfd6b7dabc8
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 09:08:57PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
from cached registers). The first release shipping that commit was
v3.4. The log of a build of v3.4 using the oldest version of GCC (that
Fedora used to build v3.4) I could find also contains this warning [0].
They used
28 matches
Mail list logo
