You are right! Sorry for the confusion
2014-06-26 14:04 GMT+02:00 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl>: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 01:49:56PM +0200, Daniel Buch wrote: > > Well we assign fd to be -1 above signalfd() and afterwards never read it. > > That's what my compiler complained about. > > > > Thinking further i guess its the assignment thats redundant since cleanup > > attribute calls safe_close() that basiclly assigns fd to be -1. > No, it's not redundant. If it wasn't assigned to -1, it would be closed on > the > exit from function, resultin in a double close, the first time when f is > destroyed. > > > I got, gcc version 4.9.0 20140604 (prerelease) (GCC) > You might want to report this as a regression then, I don't think we had > this warning before. > > Zbyszek >
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
