Re: [PATCH 2/2] read-cache: fix an -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

[Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com>]

On 20/03/18 04:36, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 05:56:11PM +0000, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> 
[snip]
>> diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
>> index 2eb81a66b..49607ddcd 100644
>> --- a/read-cache.c
>> +++ b/read-cache.c
>> @@ -2104,13 +2104,15 @@ static int ce_write_entry(git_SHA_CTX *c, int fd, struct cache_entry *ce,
>>  			  struct strbuf *previous_name, struct ondisk_cache_entry *ondisk)
>>  {
>>  	int size;
>> -	int saved_namelen = saved_namelen; /* compiler workaround */
>>  	int result;
>> +	unsigned int saved_namelen;
>> +	int stripped_name = 0;
> 
> Maybe too clever, but I think you could just do:
> 
>   unsigned int saved_namelen = 0;
>   ...
> 	saved_namelen = ce_namelen(ce);
>   ...
>   if (saved_namelen)
> 	ce->ce_namelen = saved_namelen;
>   ce->ce_flags &= ~CE_STRIP_NAME;
> 
> the zero-length name case (if that's even legal) would work out the
> same.

Yeah, that was one option that I looked at. The first option
was to initialise saved_namelen to -1 (it was still an int) then
the test became if (saved_namelen >= 0). However, that started
me thinking about the zero-length case - should I assert if
((ce->ce_flags & CE_STRIP_NAME) && (ce_namelen(ce) == 0))? etc.

In the end, I decided that I wanted it to be 'drop dead' obvious
what was going on! Hopefully, the result was just that. :-D

ATB,
Ramsay Jones