Tom Spindler wrote:

> > > Sprinkle volatile, instead of using the (void)&foo; which does not work on
> > > gcc 4.
> > 
> > Doesn't "volatile" cause the compiler to constantly load/store
> > those variables to the stack all the time instead of just keeping
> > them in registers if it can?  In other words, we now take a
> > performance hit just to shut up some gcc warnings?
> 
> Personally, I'd like to see the case where the cpu hit for vfstype,
> or the option parsing, is measurable compared to the time used in
> waiting for the device you're fscking.

Specifically for fsck, this obviously shouldn't be an issue.  But as a
general fix for compiler warnings, I think it's a big step in the wrong
direction.

Simon.