There is actually no usage of uninitialized variable there, though it is probably not exactly straightforward for compiler to guess. Why it does not complain that 'cdesc[index]' may be used uninitialized while it is handled the same way? AFAIK GCC 8 is not released yet, maybe this will change before final release?
If still to change that, does the attached patch fixes the warning as well (sorry, I don't have gcc 8 in hands to test)? If yes, I would suggest that would be a tiny bit nicer way to silence the warning.
On 11/07/2017 01:22 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
There are more of this in d3dx9_36, but at least this is one down.
Gerald
Signed-off-by: Gerald Pfeifer gerald@pfeifer.com
dlls/d3dx9_36/preshader.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/dlls/d3dx9_36/preshader.c b/dlls/d3dx9_36/preshader.c index e3e91c643b..ed22dc4045 100644 --- a/dlls/d3dx9_36/preshader.c +++ b/dlls/d3dx9_36/preshader.c @@ -888,7 +888,7 @@ static HRESULT get_constants_desc(unsigned int *byte_code, struct d3dx_const_tab for (i = 0; i < desc.Constants; ++i) { unsigned int index = out->input_count;
WORD constantinfo_reserved;
WORD constantinfo_reserved = 0; hc = ID3DXConstantTable_GetConstant(ctab, NULL, i); if (!hc)
2017-11-08 10:33 GMT+01:00 Paul Gofman gofmanp@gmail.com:
There is actually no usage of uninitialized variable there, though it isprobably not exactly straightforward for compiler to guess. Why it does not complain that 'cdesc[index]' may be used uninitialized while it is handled the same way? AFAIK GCC 8 is not released yet, maybe this will change before final release?
If still to change that, does the attached patch fixes the warning aswell (sorry, I don't have gcc 8 in hands to test)? If yes, I would suggest that would be a tiny bit nicer way to silence the warning.
If that works it would be preferable to me too.
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Paul Gofman wrote:
There is actually no usage of uninitialized variable there, though it is probably not exactly straightforward for compiler to guess. Why it does not complain that 'cdesc[index]' may be used uninitialized while it is handled the same way?
Yes, I did not find this really being used uninitialized (and, yes, you're right, it actually does complain about cdesc[index] as well -- those were the other warnings I referred to, where I did not have a fix/workaround yet).
If still to change that, does the attached patch fixes the warning as well (sorry, I don't have gcc 8 in hands to test)? If yes, I would suggest that would be a tiny bit nicer way to silence the warning.
Yes, it does, plus -- unlike my patch -- it also addresses the other warnings, so indeed it's also more effective.
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Matteo Bruni wrote:
If that works it would be preferable to me too.
Same here. :-) Can we go with your patch, Paul?
Thanks, Gerald
On 11/09/2017 11:39 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
If that works it would be preferable to me too. Same here. :-) Can we go with your patch, Paul?
Thanks, Gerald
Yes, sure, you can use it any way you like.
On 11/09/2017 11:39 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Paul Gofman wrote:
There is actually no usage of uninitialized variable there, though it is probably not exactly straightforward for compiler to guess. Why it does not complain that 'cdesc[index]' may be used uninitialized while it is handled the same way?
Yes, I did not find this really being used uninitialized (and, yes, you're right, it actually does complain about cdesc[index] as well -- those were the other warnings I referred to, where I did not have a fix/workaround yet).
I suppose cdesc[index] can be zeroed on error in the same function which fills it, but in my understanding the wined3d style did not approve redundant zero initializations (unless I missed anything here), including auto variables and redundant HEAP_ZERO_MEMORY flag to HeapAlloc(). So what should happen now to the code already there and new patches if gcc 8 starts issuing this warning false positive? Could it be just a bug which will be fixed in gcc maybe?
2017-11-09 23:12 GMT+01:00 Paul Gofman gofmanp@gmail.com:
On 11/09/2017 11:39 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Paul Gofman wrote:
There is actually no usage of uninitialized variable there, though it is probably not exactly straightforward for compiler to guess. Why it does not complain that 'cdesc[index]' may be used uninitialized while it is handled the same way?
Yes, I did not find this really being used uninitialized (and, yes, you're right, it actually does complain about cdesc[index] as well -- those were the other warnings I referred to, where I did not have a fix/workaround yet).
I suppose cdesc[index] can be zeroed on error in the same function which fills it, but in my understanding the wined3d style did not approve redundant zero initializations (unless I missed anything here), including auto variables and redundant HEAP_ZERO_MEMORY flag to HeapAlloc(). So what should happen now to the code already there and new patches if gcc 8 starts issuing this warning false positive? Could it be just a bug which will be fixed in gcc maybe?
If I understood Gerald's email correctly, those other warnings are also fixed by your patch. BTW, could you please send it as a proper patch to wine-patches? It would be helpful :)
-
Gerald Pfeifer -
Matteo Bruni -
Paul Gofman