Re: [patch review] uvc_driver: fix compile warning

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>]

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:12:47 +0200
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@skynet.be> wrote:

> Hi Mauro,
> 
> On Monday 20 April 2009 19:50:31 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:25:00 +0200
> >
> > Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@skynet.be> wrote:
> > > Hi Alexey,
> > >
> > > On Sunday 19 April 2009 22:03:09 Alexey Klimov wrote:
> > > > Hello, all
> > > > I saw warnings in v4l-dvb daily build.
> > > > May this patch be helpful?
> > >
> > > I can't reproduce the problem with gcc 4.3.2.
> > >
> > > Hans, what's the policy for fixing gcc-related issues ? Should the code
> > > use uninitialized_var() to make every gcc version happy, or can ignore
> > > the warnings when a newer gcc version fixes the problem
> >
> > Laurent,
> >
> > The kernel way is to use unitialized_var() on such cases.
> >
> > Personally, I don't like very much this approach, since it will get rid
> > forever of such error for that var. However, a future patch could make that
> > var truly uninitialized. So, an extra care should be taken on every patch
> > touching a var that uses uninitialized_var() macro.
> >
> > From my side, I accept patches with both ways to fix it.
> 
> I wasn't talking about ' = 0' vs. 'uninitialized_var()', but rather about 
> submitting a patch vs. considering the problem fixed because gcc 4.3.2 doesn't 
> spit a warning while gcc 4.3.1 does.

Since 4.3.1 is a supported gcc version, it is better to fix the warning for it.

Cheers,
Mauro