From: Pat Notz <patnotz@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 01:13:06 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dir.c: fix uninitialized memory warning
Message-ID: <AANLkTinfgZMuap+hiji3zH6fL4aOS-FrfgxPJfVE1xO6@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikbd-RQtRQWta+_Ogdicsz-1gFLnXaDYzh3wAfG@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Pat Notz <patnotz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I don't see any case that "size" can be used uninitialized. Maybe the
>>> compiler was confused by
>>>
>>> if (!check_index ||
>>>    (buf = read_skip_worktree_file_from_index(fname, &size)) == NULL)
>>>        return -1;
>>>
>>
>> No, line 245: if(size==0)
>
> The only chance for that line to be executed is read_skip_*() is
> executed and returns non-NULL buf. read_skip*() returns a non-NULL
> buffer at the end of function and does set size right before
> returning.
>
> To me it looks like a false alarm. But again, no objection to the patch.

I agree that it's a false alarm which is why I wasn't too interested
in looking into it very deeply.  Just looking to keep the code warning
free is all.

> --
> Duy
>