On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:19:38AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 01/15/2016 09:00 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 05:24:50PM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > >Since, you didn't answer to my original question, I will repeat it again. > >[Q.] What did you try to achieve by this patch? > > Hello Leon, > > Have you noticed Dan's reply: "Doing bogus initializations turns off GCC's > checking for uninitialized variables so it's a bad habit." Yes and his second part of that message too, that uninitialized checks in GCC work as not as expected [1, 2]. Stackoverflow site has a lot examples of these types of bugs [3]. These examples together with Dan's suggestion requires from all reviewers to be extra cautions when removing variable initialization. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Better_Uninitialized_Warnings [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=may%20be%20uninitialized [3] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/27063678/compiler-not-detecting-obviously-uninitialized-variable > > Thanks, > > Bart. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
