Hi
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 3:31 PM Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
<phi...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 28/3/24 11:20, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote:
> > From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
> >
> > ../hw/sd/sdhci.c:846:16: error: ‘res’ may be used uninitialized
> > [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> >
> > False-positive, because "length" is non-null.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > hw/sd/sdhci.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/sd/sdhci.c b/hw/sd/sdhci.c
> > index c5e0bc018b..da5351d4e5 100644
> > --- a/hw/sd/sdhci.c
> > +++ b/hw/sd/sdhci.c
> > @@ -745,7 +745,7 @@ static void sdhci_do_adma(SDHCIState *s)
> > const uint16_t block_size = s->blksize & BLOCK_SIZE_MASK;
> > const MemTxAttrs attrs = { .memory = true };
> > ADMADescr dscr = {};
> > - MemTxResult res;
> > + MemTxResult res = MEMTX_ERROR;
>
> Something is indeed odd here. Due to the for() loop, the variable
> initialization should be moved after the SDHC_ADMA_ATTR_ACT_TRAN
> switch case.
>
Moving the variable initialization? What do you suggest exactly?
thanks
--
Marc-André Lureau
