Re: [PATCH 2/2] read-cache: fix an -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

From: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com>
Date: Mar 20, 2018, 22:52 UTC
Message-ID: <e3894650-3639-c871-1291-f3efa7fbea0a@ramsayjones.plus.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180320043652.GC13302@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On 20/03/18 04:36, Jeff King wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 05:56:11PM +0000, Ramsay Jones wrote:
>

[snip]

Show 25 quoted lines

>> diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
>> index 2eb81a66b..49607ddcd 100644
>> --- a/read-cache.c
>> +++ b/read-cache.c
>> @@ -2104,13 +2104,15 @@ static int ce_write_entry(git_SHA_CTX *c, int fd, struct cache_entry *ce,
>>  			  struct strbuf *previous_name, struct ondisk_cache_entry *ondisk)
>>  {
>>  	int size;
>> -	int saved_namelen = saved_namelen; /* compiler workaround */
>>  	int result;
>> +	unsigned int saved_namelen;
>> +	int stripped_name = 0;
> 
> Maybe too clever, but I think you could just do:
> 
>   unsigned int saved_namelen = 0;
>   ...
> 	saved_namelen = ce_namelen(ce);
>   ...
>   if (saved_namelen)
> 	ce->ce_namelen = saved_namelen;
>   ce->ce_flags &= ~CE_STRIP_NAME;
> 
> the zero-length name case (if that's even legal) would work out the
> same.

Yeah, that was one option that I looked at. The first option was to initialise saved_namelen to -1 (it was still an int) then the test became if (saved_namelen >= 0). However, that started me thinking about the zero-length case - should I assert if ((ce->ce_flags & CE_STRIP_NAME) && (ce_namelen(ce) == 0))? etc.

In the end, I decided that I wanted it to be 'drop dead' obvious what was going on! Hopefully, the result was just that. :-D

ATB, Ramsay Jones