Re: [PATCH 2/2] cat-file: Fix an gcc -Wuninitialized warning
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Mar 26, 2013, 19:35 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20130326193539.GB28244@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <5151F4EB.80909@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 07:20:11PM +0000, Ramsay Jones wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> After commit cbfd5e1c ("drop some obsolete "x = x" compiler warning
> hacks", 21-03-2013) removed a gcc specific hack, older versions of
> gcc now issue an "'contents' might be used uninitialized" warning.
> In order to suppress the warning, we simply initialize the variable
> to NULL in it's declaration.I'm OK with this, if it's the direction we want to go. But I thought the discussion kind of ended as "we do not care about these warnings on ancient versions of gcc; those people should use -Wno-error=uninitialized".
What version of gcc are you using? If it is the most recent thing reasonably available on msysgit, then I am more sympathetic. But if it's just an antique version of gcc, I am less so.
> An alternative solution may look like this (note: *untested*): > [...] > However, this would add an additional call to sha1_object_info()
Yeah, I don't think that is worth it.
> the "--batch" code path, with potential performance consequences > (again untested). Also, if you are paranoid, I guess you should > check that the (type,size) returned by sha1_object_info() was the > same as that returned by read_sha1_file(). ;-)
I note that we do not actually check that contents != NULL after calling read_sha1_file, either (nor that sha1_object_info does not return an error). I suspect cat-file could segfault under the right conditions.
-Peff