On Tuesday 02 February 2016 11:47:13 Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 02/02, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 01 February 2016 17:15:45 Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >
> > I see what you mean now. I checked different gcc versions, and with my
> > patch I get
> > the warnings for 4.6 through 4.9, but not for 5.x.
> >
> > In general, I tried to only address warnings I still see with newer gcc
> > version,
> > as they are better about false positives. Do you think it's ok to take the
> > patch as is then? Otherwise we probably have to add fake initializations
> > which
> > would shut up the warnings but not help with the code quality.
> >
>
> Sure. I was hoping something could be done to restructure the
> code to make it easier for the compiler to figure out the
> variables would be initialized. But you're the one who's sending
> the patch to silence them so if you're satisfied I'm not going to
> spend too much time on this.
>
Ok, thanks!
Note that this one patch was for a real bug involving undefined
behavior that is now fixed.
Arnd
