On 10/09/2011 11:35 PM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 08/29/2011 11:33 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> diff --git a/tree-walk.c b/tree-walk.c
>>> index 33f749e..808bb55 100644
>>> --- a/tree-walk.c
>>> +++ b/tree-walk.c
>>> [...]
>>> @@ -376,16 +396,22 @@ int traverse_trees(int n, struct tree_desc *t, struct traverse_info *info)
>>> mask |= 1ul << i;
>>> if (S_ISDIR(entry[i].mode))
>>> dirmask |= 1ul << i;
>>> + e = &entry[i];
>>> }
>>> if (!mask)
>>> break;
>>> - ret = info->fn(n, mask, dirmask, entry, info);
>>> - if (ret < 0) {
>>> - error = ret;
>>> - if (!info->show_all_errors)
>>> - break;
>>> + interesting = prune_traversal(e, info, &base, interesting);
>>
>> According to gcc 4.2.4 (though, strangely, not gcc 4.4.3):
I checked this a bit more carefully. gcc 4.2.4 emits a warning when the
-O1 or -O2 optimization levels are used, but not with -O0. gcc 4.4.3
does not emit a warning regardless of optimization level.
>> tree-walk.c: In function ‘traverse_trees’:
>> tree-walk.c:347: warning: ‘e’ may be used uninitialized in this function
>
> False alarm. If e is not initialized in the for loop, mask would be
> zero and therefore prune_traversal(e, info, &base, interesting), which
> would use uninitialized "e", would never be called.
That's good to know. Still, it might be worthwhile to initialize the
variable explicitly to avoid future confusion.
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html