At Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:23:08 +0100,
Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 06:40:01PM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
>
> > How about the following brutal shutdown ?
>
> No, this is the patch you originally submitted. You are missing the
> point here - your patches are all just papering over the warning and
> won't help at all if there is an actual problem.
>
> > 'factors' will get initialized here, as, 'freq_out' will probably never have
> > a '0' value. So, 'fll_factors()' will actually overwrite values in 'factors'
> > even after the initial brutal assignment:
> > "struct fll_factors factors = {}"
>
> This is pretty much the point of the warning when it's valid - it's
> trying to catch situations where there is a code path where the variable
> is used without being initialised. If you just blindly initialise the
> variable as you are doing then the warning goes away but any problematic
> code remains so the situation is worse.
>
> In this case I suspect that whatever compiler you are using (none of
> those I've tried with seem to be doing this) isn't able to figure out
> that if we skip initialising the variable then we use exactly the same
> condition to return from the function before we try to use the variable.
I get compile warnings on gcc 4.4.0, too.
> For something like this the warning can normally be worked around by
> changing the control flow so that the compiler is able to figure out
> that things are safe.
Agreed.
Takashi
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
