Re: [PATCH] Fix maybe-uninitialized warnings found by gcc 9 -flto

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> I said earlier that I wouldn't mind seeing "namelen = 0" here. But I
> think there is a much more direct solution: keeping the assignment and
> point of use closer together. That makes it more clear both to the
> compiler and to a human when we expect the variable to be valid. In
> fact, since it's only used once, we can drop the variable altogther. :)

Yeah, that sounds like a nice solution.

> diff --git a/t/helper/test-read-cache.c b/t/helper/test-read-cache.c
> index 7e79b555de..244977a29b 100644
> --- a/t/helper/test-read-cache.c
> +++ b/t/helper/test-read-cache.c
> @@ -4,11 +4,10 @@
>  
>  int cmd__read_cache(int argc, const char **argv)
>  {
> -	int i, cnt = 1, namelen;
> +	int i, cnt = 1;
>  	const char *name = NULL;
>  
>  	if (argc > 1 && skip_prefix(argv[1], "--print-and-refresh=", &name)) {
> -		namelen = strlen(name);
>  		argc--;
>  		argv++;
>  	}
> @@ -24,7 +23,7 @@ int cmd__read_cache(int argc, const char **argv)
>  
>  			refresh_index(&the_index, REFRESH_QUIET,
>  				      NULL, NULL, NULL);
> -			pos = index_name_pos(&the_index, name, namelen);
> +			pos = index_name_pos(&the_index, name, strlen(name));
>  			if (pos < 0)
>  				die("%s not in index", name);
>  			printf("%s is%s up to date\n", name,