From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <remy.horton@intel.com>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65B633195
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:45:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29])
 by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Mar 2016 06:45:41 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,316,1455004800"; d="scan'208";a="667077328"
Received: from rhorton-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [163.33.229.61])
 ([163.33.229.61])
 by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Mar 2016 06:45:42 -0800
Message-ID: <56E18894.6020409@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:45:40 +0000
From: Remy Horton <remy.horton@intel.com>
Organization: Intel Shannon Limited
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@dpdk.org
References: <1456426121-21423-1-git-send-email-aconole@redhat.com>
 <1456426121-21423-9-git-send-email-aconole@redhat.com>
 <56E179E2.1020704@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <56E179E2.1020704@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 8/8] drivers/net/ixgbe: Fix uninitialized
	warning
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:45:42 -0000


On 10/03/2016 13:42, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 02/25/2016 08:48 PM, Aaron Conole wrote:
>> Silence a compiler warning that this variable may be used uninitialized.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>
[..]
>
> The patch looks ok as such, but then again warning looks like a false
> positive to me: assignment and dereferencing depend on the same value of
> eop, which cannot change between the two.

In two minds about this. It is a logical impossibility, but these days 
optimising compilers are getting very aggressive. For instance GCC has a 
delightfully-named -fdelete-null-pointer-checks option, which caused 
security holes..

..Remy