From: Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com
CC [M] drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r100.o In file included from drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_mode.h:37:0, from drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h:80, from drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r100.c:33: drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r100.c: In function 'r100_bandwidth_update': include/drm/drm_fixed.h:64:13: warning: 'crit_point_ff.full' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] u64 tmp = ((u64)A.full << 13); ^ drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r100.c:3153:63: note: 'crit_point_ff.full' was declared here fixed20_12 peak_disp_bw, mem_bw, pix_clk, pix_clk2, temp_ff, crit_point_ff; ^ drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r100.c:3583:42: warning: 'disp_drain_rate.full' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] temp_ff.full = read_return_rate.full - disp_drain_rate.full;
gcc version 5.3.1 20151219 (Ubuntu 5.3.1-4ubuntu1)
Cc: Alex Deucher alexander.deucher@amd.com Cc: "Christian König" christian.koenig@amd.com Cc: David Airlie airlied@linux.ie Signed-off-by: Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com ---
I think this warning is bogus, but I don't know how else to make gcc shut up.
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r100.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r100.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r100.c index 9e7e2bf..5eae0a8 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r100.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r100.c @@ -3150,7 +3150,8 @@ void r100_bandwidth_update(struct radeon_device *rdev) { fixed20_12 trcd_ff, trp_ff, tras_ff, trbs_ff, tcas_ff; fixed20_12 sclk_ff, mclk_ff, sclk_eff_ff, sclk_delay_ff; - fixed20_12 peak_disp_bw, mem_bw, pix_clk, pix_clk2, temp_ff, crit_point_ff; + fixed20_12 peak_disp_bw, mem_bw, pix_clk, pix_clk2, temp_ff; + fixed20_12 crit_point_ff = {0}; uint32_t temp, data, mem_trcd, mem_trp, mem_tras; fixed20_12 memtcas_ff[8] = { dfixed_init(1), @@ -3204,7 +3205,7 @@ void r100_bandwidth_update(struct radeon_device *rdev) fixed20_12 min_mem_eff; fixed20_12 mc_latency_sclk, mc_latency_mclk, k1; fixed20_12 cur_latency_mclk, cur_latency_sclk; - fixed20_12 disp_latency, disp_latency_overhead, disp_drain_rate, + fixed20_12 disp_latency, disp_latency_overhead, disp_drain_rate = {0}, disp_drain_rate2, read_return_rate; fixed20_12 time_disp1_drop_priority; int c;
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 12:31 PM, tim.gardner@canonical.com wrote:
It's definitely bogus. It just showed up in a new version of gcc. Applied.
Thanks.
Alex
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Alex Deucher -
tim.gardner＠canonical.com