The warning is bogus, so silence it by initializing the 'ret' variable.
Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <avoront...@ru.mvista.com>
---
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 09:27:37PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Anton Vorontsov,
>
> In message <20090901182518.ga17...@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> you wrote:
> >
> > We can fix the warnings by assigning some value to a variable
> > at declaration, but the advantage of 'x = x' trick is that it
> > doesn't generate any code.
>
> Argh... what a clev^H^H^H^Hdirty trick.
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> However, in this case it seems to make sense to me to explicitly
> initialize the return code with zero.
Well, I don't see any advantages of this, but here it is anyway.
Thanks.
p.s. Timur, since the patch has changed, I couldn't preserve your
previous Ack.
board/freescale/common/sys_eeprom.c | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/board/freescale/common/sys_eeprom.c
b/board/freescale/common/sys_eeprom.c
index c0fff68..661015e 100644
--- a/board/freescale/common/sys_eeprom.c
+++ b/board/freescale/common/sys_eeprom.c
@@ -204,7 +204,8 @@ static void update_crc(void)
*/
static int prog_eeprom(void)
{
- int ret, i;
+ int ret = 0; /* shut up gcc */
+ int i;
void *p;
#ifdef CONFIG_SYS_EEPROM_BUS_NUM
unsigned int bus;
--
1.6.3.3
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
