Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn schrieb:
> I see this warning, and I don't like it:
>
> busybox-1.13.2/networking/udhcp/dhcpc.c:
> In function `udhcpc_main':
> busybox-1.13.2/networking/udhcp/dhcpc.c:321:
> warning: `timestamp_before_wait' might be used uninitialized in this function
>
> Is this patch appropriate?
>
> --- busybox-1.13.2/networking/udhcp/dhcpc.c.~1~ 2008-11-09
> 18:27:58.000000000 +0100
> +++ busybox-1.13.2/networking/udhcp/dhcpc.c 2009-01-13 13:09:30.000000000
> +0100
> @@ -342,7 +342,8 @@
> /* Else: an error occured, panic! */
> bb_perror_msg_and_die("select");
> }
> - }
> + } else
> + timestamp_before_wait = 0;
>
> /* If timeout dropped to zero, time to become active:
> * resend discover/renew/whatever
>
>
> Cheers,
>
maybe a simple
unsigned timestamp_before_wait=0;
will do the same ?
re,
wh
btw: can unsigned be replaced with unsigned int or whatever is useful here ?
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
