On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Markus Gothe wrote:

GCC 4.1.2 has been stable for a long time now, maybe you better
upgrade your binutils instead...

I'd been using 4.2.1 -- I don't want to downgrade to 4.1.2. (btw from
the discussion on gcc's bugzilla it appears the bug wasn't resolved
in 4.1.2 either?)

Satyam

Satyam Sharma wrote:

quoted

Hi Maciej,


On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:

quoted

This initialisation to zero is not good.

Because if some error-path code forgot to do `err = -EFOO' then
probe() will return zero and the driver will leave things in
half-initialised state and will then proceed as if things had
succeeded.  It will crash.

GCC used to complain: "`foo' might be used uninitialized..." and
this is the usual cure; let me see if this not the case anymore
(I have 4.1.2).

Even so, initializing to zero isn't quite good. You could use the
uninitialized_var() (once you've confirmed that the warning is
bogus). However, some maintainers may still nack
uninitialized_var() usage, quite legitimately.

quoted

quoted

So it's better to leave this local uninitialised, because we
really want to get that compiler warning if someone forgot to
set the return value.

Yes of course, barring the issue mentioned.  Note the message
above is not the same as: "`foo' is used uninitialized..." that
would be reported in the case which you are concerned of.

Firstly, "may be used uninitialized" can still be a bug.

Secondly, latest gcc is *horribly* buggy (and has been so for last
several releases including 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 -- 3.x was good). See:

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33327
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501

We'd been hurling all sorts of abuses on gcc for quite long (when
it fails to detect these "false positive" cases), but now, it turns
out it is quite easy to write *genuinely* buggy code that still
won't get any warnings, neither the "is used" nor "may be used"
one!

In short, there are three ways to fix these false positive
warnings:

1. Do nothing, there are enough "uninitialized variable" warnings
anyway, and hopefully, one day GCC would clean up its act.

2. Use uninitialized_var() to shut it up (only if it's genuinely
bogus).

3. Do something like the following legendary patch [1]:

http://kegel.com/crosstool/crosstool-0.43/patches/linux-2.6.11.3/arch_alpha_kernel_srcons.patch


i.e., explicitly change the structure/logic of the function to make
it obvious enough to gcc that the variable will not be used
uninitialized.


Satyam

[1] That was a funny case -- the alpha linux maintainer is also a
gcc maintainer. Alpha even sets -Werror, so either he had to fix
the kernel code that produced the warning, or go fix GCC to not
warn about it -- he chose the former :-)