It may be correct in this case, but "simple matter of" can sometimes mask a real problem. If the function expected the value to be set earlier, but the analysis tool finds a path where it's not set, there could be a more real bug. Is zero the right value? Why not, 1, -1, or 42? =0 may be perfectly good in this case. But beware of quick code fixes to silence compiler warnings. On 7/21/2015 5:56 PM, Salz, Rich wrote: > If it's a simple matter of adding "=0" in the declaration, we should just fix the darn thing.
