[U-Boot] [PATCH] fix: tools: kwbimage.c: Initialize headersz to suppress warning

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hello Lukasz,

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 07:56:35 +0100, Lukasz Majewski
<l.majewski at majess.pl> wrote:

> > Agreed in general, but not for this one, since "fixing" is the
> > carpet, 
> 
> I assume that you are presenting below an answer to a "general" case.
> 
> However, as Thomas pointed out earlier, this "fix" is perfectly safe
> regarding the underlying kwbimage code.

Jeroen and I (full disclaimer: we have discussed the topic on IRC)
do not contend that the proposed fix would be unsafe; it *is* safe, i.e.
it does not adversely affect the code behavior in any measurable way.

What we contend is that the fix be the /right/ fix (although Jeroen and
I have slightly differing criteria for defining what "the right fix"
would be).

> > > and
> > > the only justification I see as acceptable for doing so is when
> > > leaving the warning enabled would cause an obnoxiously high number
> > > of false positives.
> > 
> > Well let me add, if "fixing the warning" causes real error
> > to be hidden, we shouldn't "fix" the warnings by modifying
> > valid code.
> 
> Each subsequent "fix" for this kind of warning should be considered
> case by case IMHO, therefore I agree with Albert.

Jeroen also agreed on IRC that disabling the compiler warning is not
the right fix either; and I agreed that there had to be a better fix
than pseudo-initializing headersz. I therefore suggested refactoring
kwbimage_set_header in order to ensure gcc does not emit the warning,
but without resorting to non-functional code such as a functionally
meaningless initialization.

Problem is, to refactor the code, one needs a gcc which emits the
warnig. I tried various versions of gcc (4.7.4, 4.8.3, 4.9.1) and all
remained silent when compiling tools/kwbimage.c.

Hence my request: Lukasz, which toolchain are you using exactly? Where
can we download it from?

> > Regards,
> > Jeroen
> 
> Best regards,
> Lukasz Majewski

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.