On (12/03/15 12:34), Pavel Březina wrote:
On 03/12/2015 12:30 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:50:21AM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:16:41AM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>I'm also waiting for a Coverity check to finish.
>>
>>There are some warnings, mostly the same problem copied around:
>>Error: COMPILER_WARNING:
>>sssd-1.12.90/src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c:232:8: warning:
'ret' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>># if (ret == EEXIST) {
>># ^
>>sssd-1.12.90/src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c:212:13: note:
'ret' was declared here
>># errno_t ret;
>># ^
>>
>>Error: COMPILER_WARNING:
>>sssd-1.12.90/src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c: scope_hint: In function
'cache_req_get_object'
>>sssd-1.12.90/src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c:343:8: warning:
'ret' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>># if (ret != EOK) {
>># ^
>>
>>Error: COMPILER_WARNING:
>>sssd-1.12.90/src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c:348:30: warning:
'one_item_only' may be used uninitialized in this function
[-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>># } else if (one_item_only && result->count > 1) {
>># ^
>>
>>Error: COMPILER_WARNING:
>>sssd-1.12.90/src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c:26: included_from:
Included from here.
>>sssd-1.12.90/src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c: scope_hint: In function
'cache_req_cache_done'
>>sssd-1.12.90/src/util/util.h:130:9: warning: 'ret' may be used
uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>># debug_fn(__FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNCTION__, \
>># ^
>>sssd-1.12.90/src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c:243:13: note:
'ret' was declared here
>># errno_t ret;
>># ^
>>
>>I think it's fine to initialize ret to ERR_INTERNAL in that case. We know
>>that one of the 'case' statements would hit, so this change could be just
>>another precaution.
>
>btw CI passed:
http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/10/53/summary.html
Thanks.
Since those warning comes from original code that is already present in
master, it is fixed in a separate patch (#1).
I do not agree with separate patch.
Firstly, it is compiler warning and not coverity
Secondly, it is caused by 7th patch
cache_req: remove default branch from switches
CC src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.o
src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c: In function ‘cache_req_get_object’:
src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c:304:8: error: ‘ret’ may be used uninitialized
in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
if (ret != EOK) {
^
src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c:309:30: error: ‘one_item_only’ may be used
uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
} else if (one_item_only && result->count > 1) {
^
src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c: In function ‘cache_req_cache_done’:
src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c:234:160: error: ‘ret’ may be used uninitialized
in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c:213:13: note: ‘ret’ was declared here
errno_t ret;
^
src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c: In function ‘cache_req_next_domain’:
src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c:262:160: error: ‘ret’ may be used uninitialized
in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c:246:13: note: ‘ret’ was declared here
errno_t ret;
^
src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c:202:8: error: ‘ret’ may be used uninitialized
in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
if (ret == EEXIST) {
^
src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c:185:13: note: ‘ret’ was declared here
errno_t ret;
^
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
sh$ rpm -q gcc
gcc-5.0.0-0.17.fc22.x86_64
I did not testen on fedora 21.
LS