Roland Dreier wrote:
In this case the code is basically
u32 x;
for (n = 0; cond; ++n) {
...
if (!n)
x = something;
...
}
if (n) {
...
use(x);
...
}
and gcc still warns...
Interestingly, the above accurately describes a common code pattern
matching code which caused gcc to emit the uninit'd-var warnings.
For the record I think initializating 'f0' to zero is safer for the
reasons Linus gave, and in addition, f0 is or'd with a value written to
a hardware register, which means things should go awry (if they go) in a
semi-predictable manner.
According to the assembly language produced, sure it is larger -- by one
(per function) MOV that is adjacent to other initializations, making it
highly likely the initializations are all streamed together. I doubt
one MOV per function will make a huge difference, considering the peace
of mind it buys.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
