From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4817 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2012 16:06:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 4801 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jul 2012 16:06:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:06:26 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6GG6P81022430 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:06:25 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6GG6N4K024774; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:06:24 -0400 Message-ID: <50043BFF.6000205@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:06:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sterling Augustine CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Initialize status in gdbserver/linux-low.c References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-07/txt/msg00213.txt.bz2 On 07/16/2012 04:54 PM, Sterling Augustine wrote: > Hi, > > As the code for handle_extended_wait exists today, status can be used > uninitialized on line 486 if pull_pid_from_list on line 451 returns > true. If pull_pid_from_list returns true, then it has written to status. Sounds like you're getting a false positive warning? > > This near-trivial patch initializes it to zero at the declaration. > > OK for mainline? If this is indeed a false warning, then this is okay with a "Avoid GCC false warning" comment or some such. -- Pedro Alves