From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ns0LM-00072z-9q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:59:56 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51427 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ns0LL-00071x-G3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:59:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ns0LI-00084E-Ht for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:59:55 -0400 Received: from mail-px0-f200.google.com ([209.85.216.200]:43209) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ns0LI-000848-7R for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:59:52 -0400 Received: by pxi38 with SMTP id 38so721843pxi.27 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BA142C4.5030805@codemonkey.ws> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:59:48 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] [TRIVIAL] usb-linux: remove unreachable default in switch statement References: <1268053115.2130.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <201003171708.04633.paul@codesourcery.com> <4BA10E49.90703@codemonkey.ws> <201003171743.06728.paul@codesourcery.com> <4BA13E6E.4060708@codemonkey.ws> <1268859417.23390.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1268859417.23390.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paul Bolle Cc: Blue Swirl , Paul Brook , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 03/17/2010 03:56 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: > On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 15:41 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> On 03/17/2010 03:15 PM, Blue Swirl wrote: >> >>> This breaks build (gcc 4.3.2): >>> CC usb-linux.o >>> cc1: warnings being treated as errors >>> /src/qemu/usb-linux.c: In function 'usb_linux_update_endp_table': >>> /src/qemu/usb-linux.c:759: error: 'type' may be used uninitialized in >>> this function >>> >>> >> That's unfortunate. I'll revert. >> > I can't reproduce this with gcc-4.4.3-8.fc13.i686 (which I'm currently > running). The patch was tested and submitted when I was running > gcc-4.4.3-6.fc13.i686. > Yeah, it worked for me, but clearly older versions of gcc are less smart about calculating ranges. Regards, Anthony Liguori > Regards, > > > Paul Bolle > >