On 11/25/2012 01:55 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:27:12AM +0800, Qing Xu wrote:
But, in fact, it is not necessary to initialize regulator_idx.
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(max8925_regulator_info); i++) {
ri = &max8925_regulator_info[i];
if (ri->vol_reg == res->start) {
****** if regulator_idx can not get a match "i" here, it will return
-EINVAL in below code
regulator_idx = i;
break;
}
}
if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(max8925_regulator_info)) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to find regulator %llu\n",
(unsigned long long)res->start);
return -EINVAL;
}
How to solve such compiler warning?
Typically by reporting a compiler bug, though sometimes in the process
of doing that one finds out that there's some non-obvious way in which
the code can break.
It seems not like a compiler bug, its logic is:
for(...; i<xxx; ...) {
if (...) {
regulator_idx = i
break;
}
}
if (i == xxx)
return ERROR;
If regulator_idx can not get a matched "i" value, code will return ERROR.
But it seems that compiler can not do so complex judge.
And, I think the code is safe even if regulator_idx is not initialized, also
because of the "return ERROR" judge.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
