From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Sep 13 03:12:54 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 55D9316A4CE; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 03:12:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from beaver.trit.org (beaver.trit.org [69.107.245.241])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 33C5543D2F; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 03:12:54 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from dd@freebsd.org)
Received: by beaver.trit.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id DBE4690DCBB; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 03:12:53 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 03:12:53 +0000
From: Dima Dorfman <dd@freebsd.org>
To: Dan Lukes <dan@obluda.cz>
Message-ID: <20040913031253.GD42003@trit.org>
References: <200409130100.i8D10xDG057337@freefall.freebsd.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200409130100.i8D10xDG057337@freefall.freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
X-PGP-Key: 69FAE582 (http://www.trit.org/~dima/dima.asc)
X-PGP-Fingerprint: B340 8338 7DA3 4D61 7632  098E 0730 055B 69FA E582
cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
cc: keramida@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: bin/71628: [PATCH] cleanup of the usr.sbin/rpcbind code
X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bug reports <freebsd-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 03:12:54 -0000

[talking about constructs like this: SVCXPRT *my_xprt = my_xprt;]

Dan Lukes <dan@obluda.cz> wrote:
>  On Sun, 12 Sep 2004, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>  > No.  I don't know why you think that this is a good fix for all the
>  > uninitialized pointer warnings.  It's not.  Never :-/
>
>   	Why ? It's written within the "description" section of the PR.
>  Warning shoult be "attention marks" - THIS CONSTRUCT SHOULD BE REVIEWED.

Any initialization in the form "T v = v" invokes undefined behavior by
using the indeterminate value of an object. Eliminating a warning or
saving one instruction is never worth having broken code. If the
compiler can't be convinced that the variable is never used before
being initialized, please initialize it to something obviously bogus.

Dima.