On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 18:35 +0200, Toralf Förster wrote:
> I filed a bug report
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54495
> and got this answer :
>
> --- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-05
> 22:14:00 UTC ---
> But if the call to ftrace_function_filter_re sets re_cnt to 0, then ret indeed
> will be used uninitialized AFAICT. What am I missing?
>
That I think we are looking at two different code bases ;-)
I've been looking at what's been queued for 3.7 and not what's in
mainline. If you look at tip/master, or even linux-next, you'll find:
commit 92d8d4a8b0f "tracing/filter: Add missing initialization"
Which does:
static int __ftrace_function_set_filter(int filter, char *buf, int len,
struct function_filter_data *data)
{
- int i, re_cnt, ret;
+ int i, re_cnt, ret = -EINVAL;
int *reset;
char **re;
Thus, you were correct. This could have been marked urgent, but as it
isn't that big of a deal I just queued it for the next merge window.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
