From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ixgbe: fix build with gcc 4.4
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 02:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1581903.SRNWASATZe@xps13>
References: <1958525.YbKd0lDtje@xps13>
 <1429130956-17828-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
 <552F7D85.2090002@cloudius-systems.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org
To: Vlad Zolotarov <vladz-RmZWMc9puTNJc61us3aD9laTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <552F7D85.2090002-RmZWMc9puTNJc61us3aD9laTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>

2015-04-16 12:14, Vlad Zolotarov:
> On 04/15/15 23:49, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > The "may be used uninitialized" warning seems to be another GCC bug and is
> > workarounded with NULL initialization.
> > --- a/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> > @@ -1476,8 +1476,8 @@ ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts,
> >   		bool eop;
> >   		struct ixgbe_rx_entry *rxe;
> >   		struct ixgbe_rsc_entry *rsc_entry;
> > -		struct ixgbe_rsc_entry *next_rsc_entry;
> > -		struct ixgbe_rx_entry *next_rxe;
> > +		struct ixgbe_rsc_entry *next_rsc_entry = NULL;
> > +		struct ixgbe_rx_entry *next_rxe = NULL;
> 
> -Wno-maybe-uninitialized ?

I prefer avoiding this flag for 2 reasons:
	- It's not supported in every GCC versions (need special handling)
	- NULL assigment doesn't hurt