On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 20:27 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > I got a complaint about gvalue being used undefined, and sure enough the > code looks like that's possible at first glance. The inference that one > or the other if branch will be taken because of g_return_val_if_fail > returning from the function is apparently too subtle for > > Using built-in specs. > Target: i386--netbsdelf > Configured with: /usr/src/tools/gcc/../../gnu/dist/gcc4/configure > --enable-long-long --disable-multilib --enable-threads --disable-symvers > --build=x86_64-unknown-netbsd4.99.72 --host=i386--netbsdelf > --target=i386--netbsdelf --enable-__cxa_atexit > Thread model: posix > gcc version 4.1.3 20080704 prerelease (NetBSD nb2 20081120) > > Here's a diff that points out the issues and makes it build for me.
I'd actually prefer initialising value to NULL so that if you pass an invalid gconfvalue without warnings on you get a NULL pointer instead of a uninitialized gvalue. Ross -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ GeoClue mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/geoclue
