On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 02:11:02PM +0100, Michal Suchánek wrote: > On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 10:51:34 +0100 > Pavel Grunt <pgrunt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello, > > > Hi Michal, > > > > On Fri, 2017-01-06 at 14:25 +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@xxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > src/vdagentd/vdagentd.c | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/src/vdagentd/vdagentd.c b/src/vdagentd/vdagentd.c > > > index 991514e..60a866e 100644 > > > --- a/src/vdagentd/vdagentd.c > > > +++ b/src/vdagentd/vdagentd.c > > > @@ -334,6 +334,7 @@ static void do_client_file_xfer(struct > > > vdagent_virtio_port *vport, > > > id = d->id; > > > break; > > > } > > > + default: return; /* quiet uninitialized variable warning */ > > I would go for 'g_return_if_reached' - it will log a warning, also it > > should be on a new line. I can do the changes and push if you agree. > > > > I use this locally to be able to build with gcc 6. gcc 4.8.5 does not > detect the issue and gcc 7 should be able to detect that the function > is called from a switch statement where only the values already tested > above are allowed. For what it's worth, I'm not seeing this warning with gcc6 (gcc (GCC) 6.3.1 20161221 (Red Hat 6.3.1-1)) Christophe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel