On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]> wrote: > This avoids some noise during building: > CC radeon_accel.lo > radeon_accel.c: In function ‘RADEONHostDataBlit’: > radeon_accel.c:855: warning: ‘__expected’ may be used uninitialized in this > function > > Signed-off-by: Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]> > --- > src/radeon.h | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/radeon.h b/src/radeon.h > index 88f1516..d73329d 100644 > --- a/src/radeon.h > +++ b/src/radeon.h > @@ -1425,7 +1425,7 @@ do { > \ > > #define RADEON_VERBOSE 0 > > -#define RING_LOCALS uint32_t *__head = NULL; int __expected; int __count > = 0 > +#define RING_LOCALS uint32_t *__head = NULL; int __expected = 0; int > __count = 0 > > #define BEGIN_RING(n) do { \ > if (RADEON_VERBOSE) { \ > -- > 1.7.0.3 > > _______________________________________________ > xorg-driver-ati mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-driver-ati >
Someone else double check me, but I don't think there's anything wrong with this. It looks like the warning is bogus. __expected only appears in the RING_LOCALS, BEGIN_RING, and ADVANCE_RING macros (src/radeon.h). __expected is initialized in BEGIN_RING in the if (!info->cs) path. Then it's only used in the if (!info->cs) path in ADVANCE_RING. I'm not familiar with this code, but the only case that __expected could be uninitialized is if at the time of BEGIN_RING info->cs was true, and at the time of ADVANCE_RING info->cs was false. Someone else give it a look. Matt _______________________________________________ xorg-driver-ati mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-driver-ati
