On Monday 30 December 2013, zhangfei wrote:
> >>>> +static int dw_mci_k3_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + struct dw_mci *host = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >>>> + int ret = 0;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + ret = dw_mci_suspend(host);
> >>>
> >>> You should never initialize local variables when they are set later in the
> >>> function (the ret = 0 part above). For more complex functions, this prevents
> >>> gcc from warning you about accidentally uninitialized uses.
>
> I am sorry I may fall into the dead end, but still quite not understand
> this rule.
> I alwayes thought it would be a good habit to init local variables before.
> Do you mean it should NOT init local variable as much as possible and
> only init on demand, like solving the gcc warning.
> Why not init the them at start in case random value cause unpredicted error?
The gcc warnings are 100% correct, we can use them as a tool to write better
code. If you write code that has no warnings with a modern compiler, you will
never use random values, but if you always initialize the local variables,
you can end up accidentally using '0' where you shouldn't have.
See http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=232 for an excellent article on the topic
by former Linaro assignee Rusty Russell.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
