From owner-cvs-all Wed Feb 27 11: 4:56 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 629C537B402; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:04:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.11.6/8.9.1) id g1RJ4IO29688; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:04:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:04:18 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200202271904.g1RJ4IO29688@apollo.backplane.com> To: Julian Elischer Cc: Bill Fenner , julian@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/usb ohci.c uhci.c References: Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I'd just initialize the variable to NULL or 0 or whatever at the top. I wouldn't go changing loop constructs. -Matt :maybe a comment may stall that.. : :On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Bill Fenner wrote: : :> :> > 2/ Recode loop to convince gcc that it does initialise a variable :> > (use do-while instead of for() so gcc knows that we always go through :> > at least once. Feel free to check my logic. :> :> This is why I hate -Werror. Coding for the compiler vs. for readability :> is always going to end up being a lose. Next year someone will come through :> here and say "Why isn't this a for() loop? That would make it much more :> reasable"... :> :> Bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message