On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 05:34:39PM +0200, Aurélien Aptel wrote: > "Dan Carpenter" <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > You're just turning off GCC's static analysis (and introducing false > > positives) when you do that. We have seen bugs caused by this and never > > seen any bugs prevented by this style. > > You've never seen bugs prevented by initializing uninitialized > variables? Code can change overtime and I don't think coverity is > checked as often as it could be, meaning the var could end up being used > while uninitialized in the future. Of course, we wouldn't see bugs that were prevented so that wasn't entirely fair. There is a several year old bug in GCC where it sometimes initializes these to zero and doesn't warn about the uninitialized variable so it is actually possible to prevent a bug by initializing it to an error code. Smatch also warns about uninitialized variables. I normally run Smatch on linux-next every day but I have been out of office for the past month and my config doesn't cover everything. We haven't been able to enable this "redundant assignment" warning because of all the false positives like this. It mostly finds dead code but it also does find some bugs where we forget to check the error code or we use the wrong variable. regards, dan carpenter
