[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] [RFC] fix 'may be used uninitialized' warnings

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 12:03:33AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 10:41:46PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 10:15:44PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 04:02:42PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 12:59:19PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 12:49:43PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 11:43:16AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > > > > Here is a patch to fix all but one 'may be used initialized' warning
> > > > > > > in FFmpeg.  Regression tests pass, so this cannot have broken things
> > > > > > > too badly, but some of it may nonetheless be suspicious.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Please review, I will commit individual hunks as they get approved,
> > > > > > > not before.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --- libavcodec/eatgv.c	(revision 16938)
> > > > > > > +++ libavcodec/eatgv.c	(working copy)
> > > > > > > @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@
> > > > > > >      unsigned char *dst_end = dst + width*height;
> > > > > > > -    int size,size1,size2,offset,run;
> > > > > > > +    int size, size1, size2, offset = 0, run;
> > > > > > >      unsigned char *dst_start = dst;
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >      if (src[0] & 0x01)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > very obviously false positive, it can never be read without prior init
> > > > > 
> > > > > What about all those falso positives?  Are those hunks OK to commit?
> > > > 
> > > > no
> > > > IMHO if a warning is wrong it should be fixed without changing the generated
> > > > code. Of course there may be desireable changes in the code that might
> > > > remove a warning as a sideeffect but adding =0 is not.
> > > > If theres a =0 then the reader thinks it IS used which can in principle
> > > > lead to confusion.
> > > 
> > > How about adding comments like
> > > 
> > > // silence gcc
> > > 
> > > to those cases?  
> > 
> > thats better than not having such comment
> > 
> > > We have similar warning workarounds in a lot of places
> > > already...
> > 
> > sadly ...
> 
> I still think it's better to have a =0 followed by a comment in there
> than ignore the warning.  This will avoid people wasting time wondering
> about them and/or trying to fix them.  It will also silence the warning,
> making important warnings more noticeable.

you have snipped my reply showing 2 better ways to fix the problem.

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves? -- Diogenes of Sinope
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20090203/cd26c21e/attachment.pgp>