René Scharfe <> writes:

> Am 05.09.19 um 19:53 schrieb Jeff King:
>>>> int cmd__read_cache(int argc, const char **argv)
>>>> {
>>>> -       int i, cnt = 1, namelen;
>>>> +       int i, cnt = 1, namelen = 0;
>> I actually saw this one the other day, because it triggered for me when
>> compiling with SANITIZE=address. AFAICT it's a false positive. "name" is
>> always NULL unless skip_prefix() returns true, in which case we always
>> set "namelen". And we only look at "namelen" if "name" is non-NULL.
>> This one doesn't even require LTO, because skip_prefix() is an inline
>> function. I'm not sure why the compiler gets confused here.
> Yes, that's curious.
>> I don't mind
>> initializing namelen to 0 to silence it, though (we already set name to
>> NULL, so this would just match).
> Pushing the strlen() call into the loop and getting rid of namelen should
> work as well -- and I'd be surprised if this had a measurable performance
> impact.

Yeah, we are making strlen() call on a constant "name" in a loop
over argv[].  I do not think it matters in this case, either.

Reply via email to