Ankit Khushwaha wrote:
> char variable in 'so_txtime.c' & 'txtimestamp.c' left uninitilized
> by when switch default case taken. raises following warning.
> 
>       txtimestamp.c:240:2: warning: variable 'tsname' is used uninitialized
>       whenever switch default is taken [-Wsometimes-uninitialized]
> 
>       so_txtime.c:210:3: warning: variable 'reason' is used uninitialized
>       whenever switch default is taken [-Wsometimes-uninitialized]
> 
> initialize these variables to NULL to fix this.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ankit Khushwaha <[email protected]>

These are false positives as the default branches in both cases exit
the program with error(..).

Since we do not observe these in normal kernel compilations: are you
enabling non-standard warnings?

> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/net/so_txtime.c   | 2 +-
>  tools/testing/selftests/net/txtimestamp.c | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/so_txtime.c 
> b/tools/testing/selftests/net/so_txtime.c
> index 8457b7ccbc09..b76df1efc2ef 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/so_txtime.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/so_txtime.c
> @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ static int do_recv_errqueue_timeout(int fdt)
>       msg.msg_controllen = sizeof(control);
> 
>       while (1) {
> -             const char *reason;
> +             const char *reason = NULL;
> 
>               ret = recvmsg(fdt, &msg, MSG_ERRQUEUE);
>               if (ret == -1 && errno == EAGAIN)
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/txtimestamp.c 
> b/tools/testing/selftests/net/txtimestamp.c
> index dae91eb97d69..bcc14688661d 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/txtimestamp.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/txtimestamp.c
> @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ static void print_timestamp_usr(void)
>  static void print_timestamp(struct scm_timestamping *tss, int tstype,
>                           int tskey, int payload_len)
>  {
> -     const char *tsname;
> +     const char *tsname = NULL;
> 
>       validate_key(tskey, tstype);
> 
> --
> 2.52.0
> 



Reply via email to