Yes, do tell. Compiler and options used. We don't see a warning on any of the compilers we test with, nor lint. Thanks, Bob >-----Original Message----- >From: Len Brown [mailto:lenb@xxxxxxxxxx] >Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 11:14 PM >To: Poyo VL >Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Moore, Robert >Subject: Re: [PATCH] /drivers/acpi/acpica/nsrepair.c (2.6.35.7) - Fixed >useless compile warning > > > >thanks, >Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center > >On Sun, 19 Sep 2010, Poyo VL wrote: > >> This is not a problem, it is a simple fix for an ugly compiler warning. >When I >> tried to cimpile, I got the following warning: >> drivers/acpi/acpica/nsrepair.c: In function 'acpi_ns_repair_object': >> drivers/acpi/acpica/nsrepair.c:125:29: warning: 'new_object' may be used >> uninitialized in this function >> new_object is declared without being initialized. It is initialized in a >> conditional expression like if (expected_btypes & ACPI_RTYPE_INTEGER) so >the >> compiler can't be sure that it will be used initialized, and it throws >that >> warning. >> Just have to initialize new_object which is a pointer with NULL. > >I don't see this warning. >What version of the compiler are you using? > >thanks, >-Len > >> Patch: >> >> Signed-off-by: Ionut Gabriel Popescu <poyo_vl@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/nsrepair.c 2010-09-20 08:35:56.568006487 >+0300 >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/nsrepair.c 2010-09-20 08:00:40.000000000 >+0300 >> @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ acpi_ns_repair_object(struct acpi_predef >> union acpi_operand_object **return_object_ptr) >> { >> union acpi_operand_object *return_object = *return_object_ptr; >> - union acpi_operand_object *new_object; >> + union acpi_operand_object *new_object = NULL; >> acpi_status status; >> >> ACPI_FUNCTION_NAME(ns_repair_object); >> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
