Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Christopher Michael
> <cpmicha...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Andreas Volz <li...@brachttal.net> wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:54:45 -0300 schrieb Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Enlightenment SVN
>>>>> <no-re...@enlightenment.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> - now used Eina_List for storage (I hope I used it correct...)
>>>>>> + Eina_List *l = NULL;
>>>>>> + Evas_Object *o = NULL;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + // delete the list
>>>>>> + for (l = xscreensaver_list; l; l = eina_list_next(l))
>>>>>> + {
>>>>>> + xscreensaver_list = eina_list_remove_list(xscreensaver_list,
>>>>>> l);
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>> please notice:
>>>>>
>>>>> l = NULL is dead assignment, the first thing you do later is to "l =
>>>>> xscreensaver_list, so l = NULL is useless and will trigger an alert in
>>>>> llvm/clang.
>>>> Do you really think this is a "problem" that needs to be fixed? Would
>>>> be the same here:
>>>>
>>>> static void
>>>> _cb_disable_check_list(void *data, Evas_Object *obj)
>>>> {
>>>> Eina_List *list = (Eina_List*) data;
>>>> Eina_List *l = NULL;
>>>> Evas_Object *o = NULL;
>>>>
>>>> for (l = list, o = eina_list_data_get(l); l; l = eina_list_next(l),
>>>> o = eina_list_data_get(l))
>>>>
>>>> {
>>>> e_widget_disabled_set(o, !e_widget_check_checked_get(obj));
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> For sure here you're right, but in general I prefer setting new
>>>> pointers to NULL if the assignment is not in the next line. If someone
>>>> else later changes the code otherwise this is a source for potential
>>>> bugs. But here you're right and I could change it.
>>> you don't need to fix it now, maybe do in one go while fixing
>>> llvm/clang warnings later. But initializing pointers to NULL or
>>> variables to 0 is not good, if it was be sure that compilers would do
>>> that automatically. It's easier to hide bugs with that, you'll make it
>>> harder to valgrind to help you :-/
>>>
>> It should be noted tho that you can also run into cases of "variable may be
>> used uninitialized" if you don't...which can also lead to issues.
>
> very often these warnings are real errors, so more useful than bad.
>
Exactly...so IMO it would be better to leave them initialized to NULL
(as it's certainly not 'hurting' anything), plus it's safer...regardless
of what clang says.
dh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
