From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:09:38 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] tools/kwbimage: Fix compilation warning
In-Reply-To: <20141027125743.122C9380909@gemini.denx.de>
References: <1414412953-25615-1-git-send-email-sr@denx.de>
	<20141027125743.122C9380909@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <544E4412.60603@denx.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Wolfgang,

On 27.10.2014 13:57, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> tools/kwbimage.c: In function ?kwbimage_set_header?:
>> tools/kwbimage.c:784:8: warning: ?headersz? may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
>>    memcpy(ptr, image, headersz);
>>          ^
>> Instead of using multiple if statements, use a switch statement with
>> a default entry. And return with error if the VERSION field is
>> missing in the cfg file.
>
> Thanks, but...
>
>> +	switch (version) {
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Fallback to version 0 is no version is provided in the
>> +		 * cfg file
>> +		 */
>> +	case -1:
>> +	case 0:
>>   		image = image_create_v0(&headersz, params, sbuf->st_size);
>> +		break;
>> +
>> +	case 1:
>>   		image = image_create_v1(&headersz, params, sbuf->st_size);
>> +		break;
>> +
>> +	default:
>> +		fprintf(stderr, "File %s does not have the VERSION field\n",
>> +			params->imagename);
>> +		free(image_cfg);
>> +		exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> +	}
>
> What exactly is the difference between return code -1 (no version is
> provided and you fall back to using version 0), and the default case?
>
> To me these look the same?

Perhaps the error message is a bit misleading. The "default:" case is 
for unsupported versions. E.g. if "VERSION 3" would have been provided 
in the cfg file.

Should I rephrase the error message in the next patch version? To 
something like this:

	fprintf(stderr, "Unsupported VERSION %d\n", version);

Thanks,
Stefan