On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 16:49 -0400, Lee Revell wrote: > On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 16:34 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 10:29 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > > > Paul Davis wrote: > > > > > > > they don't matter. they are the result of writing a byte to a FIFO to > > > > wake up an(other) client. the contents of the byte do not make any > > > > difference at any point. > > > > > > > > > Regardless of whether this is a bug or not it would be really > > > nice if this could be fixed. Fixing it means that other people > > > valgrinding their apps which use the Jack libs don't see warnings > > > about Jack. > > > > ++ > > > > The last thing we need is MORE valgrind warnings.. > > I have not looked closely at the code, but could it be considered an > information leak if you're using a byte of unitialized data?
If you ask me using a byte of uninitialized data is an error, period (even if technically the value of that byte isn't relevant, as in this case). Uninitialized /anything/ is just asking for trouble... -DR-
