On 02/03/2015 01:14 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > 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.
To be clear, I think nothing needs to be done now except file an upstream valgrind PR. c.
