RE:2.4.19 warnings with allnoconfig

RE:2.4.19 warnings with allnoconfig

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 304 bytes --]

most of those arent really problems, justwasting space, functions defined but not called are not damaging, they might be there for later functionality, but doing that is annoying, and dirtys code, which gives me stress, ;) dm.



On 	Sun, 04 Aug 2002 13:23:52 +1000 	Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2724 bytes --]

From: Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: 2.4.19 warnings with allnoconfig
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 13:23:52 +1000
Message-ID: <23899.1028431432@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au>

2.4.19 with make allnoconfig produces these warnings.  How about
getting a clean kernel before starting on 2.4.20?

init/do_mounts.c:980: warning: `crd_load' defined but not used

arch/i386/kernel/setup.c: In function `amd_adv_spec_cache_feature': 
arch/i386/kernel/setup.c:751: warning: implicit declaration of function `have_cpuid_p'
arch/i386/kernel/setup.c: At top level:
arch/i386/kernel/setup.c:2629: warning: `have_cpuid_p' was declared implicitly `extern' and later `static'
arch/i386/kernel/setup.c:751: warning: previous declaration of `have_cpuid_p' 

arch/i386/kernel/dmi_scan.c:196: warning: `disable_ide_dma' defined but not used

fs/dnotify.c: In function `__inode_dir_notify':
fs/dnotify.c:139: warning: label `out' defined but not used

fs/namespace.c: In function `mnt_init':
fs/namespace.c:1093: warning: implicit declaration of function `init_rootfs'

drivers/char/random.c:540: warning: `free_entropy_store' defined but not used

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: RE:2.4.19 warnings with allnoconfig

[Christian Neumair]

> 2.4.19 with make allnoconfig produces these warnings.

Just a hint:
There is almost no software with completely clean code.
Whenever you see one compiling and it produces no warnings it's most
likely that the build script just suppresses warnings.

see you,
 Chris

Re: RE:2.4.19 warnings with allnoconfig

[Aschwin Marsman - aYniK Software Solutions]

On 4 Aug 2002, Christian Neumair wrote:

> > 2.4.19 with make allnoconfig produces these warnings.
> 
> Just a hint:
> There is almost no software with completely clean code.

I can't agree. What you can say is that if you enable warnings
from the beginning, it's much easier because you prevent those
warnings, if you get them a couple of times. 

If you upgrade your compiler, it can issue new warnings,
like you see when using gcc 3.x, or e.g. when changing from 2.8.x to
2.95.x.

> Whenever you see one compiling and it produces no warnings it's most
> likely that the build script just suppresses warnings.

It can also mean that a software engineer has done a good job ;-)
Always look for -Wall as a start when using the gcc compiler.

> see you,
>  Chris
 
Best regards,
 
Aschwin Marsman
 
--
aYniK Software Solutions         all You need is Knowledge
Bedrijvenpark Twente 305         NL-7602 KL Almelo - the Netherlands
P.O. box 134                     NL-7600 AC Almelo - the Netherlands
telephone: +31 (0)546-581400     fax: +31 (0)546-581401
a.marsman@aYniK.com              http://www.aYniK.com

Re: RE:2.4.19 warnings with allnoconfig

[Willy Tarreau]

On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 09:58:25AM +0200, Christian Neumair wrote:
> > 2.4.19 with make allnoconfig produces these warnings.
> 
> Just a hint:
> There is almost no software with completely clean code.
> Whenever you see one compiling and it produces no warnings it's most
> likely that the build script just suppresses warnings.

I completely disagree with you. I try hard to make my programs
compile without a warning with -Wall, even if it sometimes makes
the code a bit more difficult to read (mainly because of
parenthesis and casts). This way, I have fairly reduced portability
issues with 32/64 bits, LE/BE machines.

Just a hint :-)
It is always bad to ignore the compiler's complaints, because it tells
you that it may do things wrong when it's not sure about what you want.

Spending hours fixing a few warnings in the kernel has already led me
to fix some bugs that only a compiler or an attentive human would have
detected, specially when indentation fools you. Eg, this common mistake :

	if (something1)
		if (something 2)
			do_2();
	else
		do_not_1();

Cheers,
Willy

Re: RE:2.4.19 warnings with allnoconfig

[Ged Haywood]

Hi Willy,

On Sun, 4 Aug 2002, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> It is always bad to ignore the compiler's complaints, because it tells
> you that it may do things wrong when it's not sure about what you want.
> [snip] specially when indentation fools you. Eg, this common mistake :
> 
> 	if (something1)
> 		if (something 2)
> 			do_2();
> 	else
> 		do_not_1();

You are quite right.  Compilations should be SILENT.  How else do you
know nothing's wrong?  I would rewrite (refactor?) the code above as:

  if( something1 )
  {
    if( something2 ) { do_2(); }
  }
  else
  {
    do_not_1();
  }

and yes I use two spaces, not tabs, to indent, so I don't fall off the
page; and yes, I always use the braces, even in a one-liner; and yes,
I put the braces there and not like K&R, so I can see the buggers.
Also I NULL all my pointers immediately after declaring them AND after
using them, and I check they're not NULL before using them, which
prevents loads of segfault type errors when I screw up and...

But in trying to change the world, you're wasting time (and bandwidth :).

73,
Ged.

Re: RE:2.4.19 warnings with allnoconfig

[Tomas Szepe]

> and yes I use two spaces, not tabs, to indent, so I don't fall off the
> page;

You have other problems in your code than indent too wide then.
Seriously.

T.