Re: mshtml: Set outgoing pass-by-address variable in an error case case within confirm_safety_load.
8 Mar
2012
8 Mar
'12
11:32 a.m.
Hi Gerald,
On 03/07/12 23:35, 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.
Not sure URLPOLICY_DISALLOW is the best return value, open for better
alternatives.
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?
Jacek
8 Mar
8 Mar
8:55 p.m.
New subject: mshtml: Set outgoing pass-by-address variable in an error case case within confirm_safety_load.
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012, Jacek Caban wrote:
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?
Gerald
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?
9 Mar
9 Mar
9:17 a.m.
New subject: mshtml: Set outgoing pass-by-address variable in an error case case within confirm_safety_load.
On 03/08/12 21:55, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012, Jacek Caban wrote:
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?
It's clearly a false positive. If we return an error in
confirm_safety_load, we'll never execute the line from warning. Since
GCC 4.8 is in an early development stage, I don't think we should change
the code to hide its buggy warnings. It would be much better to see it
fixed on GCC side, so GCC bug report would be more appropriate at this
point IMO.
Cheers,
Jacek
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?
17 Jul
17 Jul
8:51 p.m.
New subject: mshtml: Set outgoing pass-by-address variable in an error case case within confirm_safety_load.
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
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.)
Gerald
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?
18 Jul
18 Jul
12:28 p.m.
New subject: mshtml: Set outgoing pass-by-address variable in an error case case within confirm_safety_load.
On 07/17/12 22:51, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
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
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?
4322
days inactive
4454
days old
4 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Gerald Pfeifer -
Jacek Caban