On 02/03/2015 12:05 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 11:49:26AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> IMO zero-initialized padding, for this case, isn't something you can >> expect. Therefore I think it's a compiler bug. > > Thanks, I've filed a bug now: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64923 > >> I think it's OK to work around this in glibc, but it needs a comment >> with a reference to the filed gcc bug. I do not think it is valid >> for gcc on s390x to use the entire bit field along with padding and >> I believe it could result in incorrect operation. > > Nothing is breaking due to this right now, so we could probably wait > and see what the gcc folks think of this.
I would check it into 2.22 and reference the GCC PR. However, I see that GCC thinks this is a valgrind bug. If valgrind is simply looking at the comparison to make the warning then it falls into the 'false positive' category. In which case I think Valgrind should set up an exception for this warning on s390. Cheers, Carlos.
