On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 8:02 PM Christos Zoulas <chris...@astron.com> wrote: > > In article <20200317005012.daf4af...@cvs.netbsd.org>, > Santhosh Raju <source-changes-d@NetBSD.org> wrote: > >-=-=-=-=-=- > > > >Module Name: src > >Committed By: fox > >Date: Tue Mar 17 00:50:12 UTC 2020 > > > >Modified Files: > > src/external/cddl/osnet/lib/libdtrace: Makefile > > > >Log Message: > >external/cddl/osnet: Supress -Werror=maybe-uninitialized error in libdtrace. > > > >It looks like this is a false positive, since the section of code > >triggering the error > > > >external/cddl/osnet/dist/lib/libdtrace/common/dt_proc.c:400:42: > > > >is only accessed after "err" is initialized. > > > >Error was reported when build.sh was run with MKLIBCSANITIZER=yes flag. > > You did not just suppress the error; you suppressed the warning too... > There is a difference between -Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized and > -Wno-maybe-uninitialized. I think we want the first flavor, otherwise > this is a large axe that will hide other warnings in the long run. >
Agreed, I shall make the change to be -Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized. > Now perhaps it is better to do what we've been doing traditionallly: > over-initialize the variable with 'foo = 0; // XXX: gcc', but that's > more book-keeping (but at least it is localized as opposed to suppress > for the entire compilation unit). Please note that we don't have a good > way to go around and test those error-avoidance overrides each time we > upgrade the compiler so they tend to stick forever. > I did think of over-initialize here, but I did not know if it would change the desired behavior of the code. > christos1 > -- Santhosh
