> I didn't mean any present incorrect behaviour, but rather a weakness which may
> (or may not) reappear at some point later and cause painful bugs
I'm not worried, that's the kind of issue that valgrind is good at
detecting (and I regularly run babeld through valgrind). There's plenty
of other
I didn't mean any present incorrect behaviour, but rather a weakness which
may
(or may not) reappear at some point later and cause painful bugs (a
zeroed-out
struct stands out way more than a gibberish-filled uninitialized one).
`do_filter` is two frames deeper from that `filter_result`'s
> I noticed that there's this new commit (b8fb6d896a234eaa06) which removes
> explicit initialization from check_xroutes() in xroute.c.
Fixed, thanks.
(I don't know what I was thinking when I accepted this patch. I need a rest.)
-- Juliusz
___
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018, at 13:21, Stanisław Drozd wrote:
> Hello,
> I noticed that there's this new commit (b8fb6d896a234eaa06)
> which removes> explicit initialization from check_xroutes() in xroute.c.
>
> Personally I don't think it's a great idea
I noticed that too and had exactly the same
Hello,
I noticed that there's this new commit (b8fb6d896a234eaa06) which removes
explicit initialization from check_xroutes() in xroute.c.
Personally I don't think it's a great idea because the initial values of the
variables involved are going to be undefined now, which makes the code
depend on
5 matches
Mail list logo
