From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 15 14:17:23 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFDA9B56; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:17:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-6.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-6.mit.edu [18.7.68.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20C812AA9; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:17:22 +0000 (UTC) X-AuditID: 12074423-f79bf6d000007580-b7-53c537eb9506 Received: from mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.43]) (using TLS with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-6.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 78.D9.30080.BE735C35; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:17:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id s6FEHDoQ019860; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:17:13 -0400 Received: from multics.mit.edu (system-low-sipb.mit.edu [18.187.2.37]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id s6FEHA9t012760 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:17:12 -0400 Received: (from kaduk@localhost) by multics.mit.edu (8.12.9.20060308) id s6FEHAnB002479; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:17:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:17:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Benjamin Kaduk X-X-Sender: kaduk@multics.mit.edu To: Dimitry Andric , David Chisnall Subject: Re: bsd.sys.mk [-Wno-uninitialized] In-Reply-To: <53C4F39E.2030407@selasky.org> Message-ID: References: <20140704123901.GR6056@albert.catwhisker.org> <53B6E218.5070009@selasky.org> <20140704174705.GS6056@albert.catwhisker.org> <53B6EDD1.8030506@selasky.org> <20140704181831.GV6056@albert.catwhisker.org> <909248A4-1B7C-4836-ADAA-F81A70A8AC3C@theravensnest.org> <771D269B-AC6D-4686-ABB0-04F7DCD3A8D9@FreeBSD.org> <53C4F39E.2030407@selasky.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (GSO 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupgleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42IR4hTV1n1tfjTY4PhidosJV34wWSzp2sdo 8fzaJzaLBUufsVksvv+I2YHVY8an+SweX3aeZwlgiuKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DKeDVtKmvBDo6K GZ/esTUw3mbrYuTkkBAwkdi87yULhC0mceHeeqA4F4eQwGwmibYz3awQzkZGiX3zD0JlDjFJ TDq+hAXCaWCUaJxzgBWkn0VAW2LGzD2MIDabgJrE473NrBBzFSU2n5rEDGKLCHhLXJzVARZn FoiXaJ7UAhYXFtCRuPNhD1Ccg4MTaM6e+aEgJq+Ao8TfpQYQqyYzSyzqnQbWKgpUvnr/FLCz eQUEJU7OfMICMdJS4t/aX6wTGIVmIUnNQpJawMi0ilE2JbdKNzcxM6c4NVm3ODkxLy+1SNdM LzezRC81pXQTIyjA2V2UdzD+Oah0iFGAg1GJh1fi3eFgIdbEsuLK3EOMkhxMSqK8xWxHg4X4 kvJTKjMSizPii0pzUosPMUpwMCuJ8EqaAOV4UxIrq1KL8mFS0hwsSuK8b62tgoUE0hNLUrNT UwtSi2CyMhwcShK8nmZAjYJFqempFWmZOSUIaSYOTpDhPEDD00BqeIsLEnOLM9Mh8qcYFaXE eSeBJARAEhmleXC9sAT0ilEc6BVh3gyQKh5g8oLrfgU0mAlocHnNYZDBJYkIKakGxoVtbqt8 mOdvld+9u2vaqqVqV3TN1SL3vvW1LqyUYV1c8/N8yroC3Rl72co/hlw0vMjY8WbtPP9bnb3S 2/arPNFUiJR6+Wa/oexmLZ4D79jF7x25dqOBxYfLlWkX04ttz3+c79HefXPxXvEtZyd+slo1 /cnN0p0ar3ZHf9rpWZTFJ9a842zMvGNKLMUZiYZazEXFiQDCRSasGwMAAA== Cc: Hans Petter Selasky , "current@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:17:23 -0000 [-stable to bcc; keeping -current] On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > On 07/05/14 15:10, David Chisnall wrote: >> On 5 Jul 2014, at 14:07, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> >>> Interestingly, -Wno-uninitialized has been in bsd.sys.mk since r76861, >>> and the accompanying comment ("XXX Delete -Wuninitialized by default for >>> now -- the compiler doesn't always get it right") has never been >>> changed. :-) >>> >>> It is probably time to re-enable that warning after 13 years, at least. >> >> It probably only wants enabling for clang. GCC (at least, GCC 4.2.1) >> performs this analysis based on analyses run by the optimisers and so the >> warnings are dependent on optimisation level. >> >> David > > Hi, > > Is someone working on this? I was going to chime in and claim that I had seen false positives from -Wuninitialized even from recent clang, but upon consulting my build logs, it seems that the false positives are actually from -Wconditional-uninitialized. Is that known to be less reliable? -Ben