Aaa, that is true! Sorry my mistake :( Best regards Rickard Strandqvist 2014-06-01 14:03 GMT+02:00 Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On 06/01/2014 01:51 PM, Rickard Strandqvist wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> Believe it reacted to the code below. >> >> If raw_sample = 0 is the correct starting value, I am not sure. But >> leaving it uninitialized, I think is the worst choice. >> >> >> if (ret < 0) >> goto out; >> >> ret = ad_sd_read_reg(sigma_delta, AD_SD_REG_DATA, >> DIV_ROUND_UP(chan->scan_type.realbits + chan->scan_type.shift, >> 8), >> &raw_sample); >> .... >> out: >> .... > > > you skipped the: > > if (ret) > return ret; > > that is here. > > >> sample = raw_sample >> chan->scan_type.shift; >> > > The code is a bit confusing and it is understandable that a static checker > might generate a false positive. The fix though is not to silence the false > positive as this will hide actual problems if they should come up by future > modifications of the code. > > >> >> Best regards >> Rickard Strandqvist >> >> >> 2014-06-01 11:15 GMT+02:00 Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> On 06/01/2014 01:11 AM, Rickard Strandqvist wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> There is a risk that the variable will be used without being >>>> initialized. >>>> >>>> This was largely found by using a static code analysis program called >>>> cppcheck. >>> >>> >>> >>> This looks like a false positive. And if it was not a false positive the >>> correct fix certainly is not to initialize the variable to some random >>> value >>> to silence the warning. >>> >>> - Lars >>> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
