From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932438Ab3LaBY4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Dec 2013 20:24:56 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f51.google.com ([209.85.160.51]:57935 "EHLO mail-pb0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932365Ab3LaBYy (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Dec 2013 20:24:54 -0500 Message-ID: <52C21CE3.3020402@lwfinger.net> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:24:51 -0600 From: Larry Finger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-wireless CC: Geert Uytterhoeven , LKML Subject: Question on compiler warning Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In his regular article entitled Build regressions/improvements in v3.13-rc6" (http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1312.3/01550.html), Geert Uytterhoeven reports the following warning regression: + /scratch/kisskb/src/drivers/net/wireless/b43/phy_n.c: warning: 'val_addr' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wuninitialized]: => 178:21 This warning does not show up on any of my compilers, and it should not as the initialization and usage of that variable both take place in conditional branches that are testing exactly the same pointer. Despite the fact that the warning is bogus, should a patch be submitted to clear it? I lean toward "no" as an answer because that would mask the warning if there were some future change that screwed up the flow; however, I wanted to check with the community. Larry