On 8/29/2017 10:15 PM, tien.fong.c...@intel.com wrote:
From: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.c...@intel.com>
Report Coverity log:
The code uses a variable that has not
been initialized, leading to unpredictable
or unintended results.
Reported-by: Coverity (CID: 60519)
Signed-off-by: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.c...@intel.com>
---
lib/libfdt/fdt_wip.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/libfdt/fdt_wip.c b/lib/libfdt/fdt_wip.c
index 45fb964..01adad0 100644
--- a/lib/libfdt/fdt_wip.c
+++ b/lib/libfdt/fdt_wip.c
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ int fdt_find_regions(const void *fdt, char * const inc[],
int inc_count,
struct fdt_region region[], int max_regions,
char *path, int path_len, int add_string_tab)
{
- int stack[FDT_MAX_DEPTH];
+ int stack[FDT_MAX_DEPTH] = { 0 };
It seems to me that one of three things must be true. 1) Coverity can't
correctly analyze the code and stack[] is not used in an un-initialized
manner, 2) stack is used in an un-initialized manner but the result is
not used in that case and is a "don't care" or 3) there is a bug in the
code. It seems that just initializing the variable to 0 is a "Bad
Idea(tm)". If it is case 1 or 2, there should be a Coverity code
annotation comment added to that effect, and if it is case 3, it should
be fixed. Initializing this variable makes the binary larger to no
purpose unless there is a bug already.
Best Regards,
J. William Campbell
char *end;
int nextoffset = 0;
uint32_t tag;
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
