On 07/17/12 22:51, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Thu, 8 Mar 2012, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >>>> I noticed we return in this case, without initializing this variable. >>>> Visual inspection indicates we do not seem to access the variable in >>>> this error case, but a) better safe than sorry, and b) GCC 4.8 currently >>>> warns about it. >>> I generally don't think this patch makes things any better (or worse). >>> If we return an error, the caller should not expect this value to be >>> sane. What's the GCC 4.8 warning? >> secmgr.c:230:1: warning: 'policy' may be used uninitialized in this >> function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] >> >> An alternative to silence this would be initializing policy to some >> default value. Would that be preferrable? > I did not see a response to this, but it seems Francois ran into the > same in the meantime and addressed it similarly, so this can be closed: > > http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-cvs/2012-July/088865.html > > (http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2012-March/112089.html > was my original submission.)
See: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2012-July/096177.html Jacek
