Re: [PATCH] Fix maybe-uninitialized warnings found by gcc 9 -flto
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2019-09-05 18:22:58
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
I said earlier that I wouldn't mind seeing "namelen = 0" here. But I think there is a much more direct solution: keeping the assignment and point of use closer together. That makes it more clear both to the compiler and to a human when we expect the variable to be valid. In fact, since it's only used once, we can drop the variable altogther. :)
Yeah, that sounds like a nice solution.
quoted hunk
diff --git a/t/helper/test-read-cache.c b/t/helper/test-read-cache.c index 7e79b555de..244977a29b 100644 --- a/t/helper/test-read-cache.c +++ b/t/helper/test-read-cache.c@@ -4,11 +4,10 @@ int cmd__read_cache(int argc, const char **argv) { - int i, cnt = 1, namelen; + int i, cnt = 1; const char *name = NULL; if (argc > 1 && skip_prefix(argv[1], "--print-and-refresh=", &name)) { - namelen = strlen(name); argc--; argv++; }@@ -24,7 +23,7 @@ int cmd__read_cache(int argc, const char **argv) refresh_index(&the_index, REFRESH_QUIET, NULL, NULL, NULL); - pos = index_name_pos(&the_index, name, namelen); + pos = index_name_pos(&the_index, name, strlen(name)); if (pos < 0) die("%s not in index", name); printf("%s is%s up to date\n", name,