From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile@majumdar.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Potential incorrect simplification
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 18:04:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CACXZuxcQEnZopJEcvRTAEpU=giRfykLP_rZLkqdRZ=hFJBpVAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACXZuxeRXsYWgwihs1nmmTYaLoyhw+PDAy6jEemkZJFpySdfQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAExDi1TtcpZtnEV6ctyA9MacJA_9h4njmhd-MSA3KgOq8oK_gA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACXZuxfxNNh+ThcT=7Xr98tToL2GimFi7UOTSwgNq6mfLLGNfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170328141113.kbrwdva6ttsrokts@macpro.local> <CACXZuxen9UFGNp8=-OQHoqRQJ5F__rwQoCJJ6TdkAo6HEXWOQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFx6g3-+6tJ_6Uqu4K1pQoDnqcXrjSGYsryLjjksEtT06A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANeU7Qk-4U2G_6CZ7KHbGZiqRe9=fpNOzE4eyfLjz3fnd_n3ww@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170806140035.f2tqkmiufjytiwri@ltop.local> <CANeU7QnjRSnnSc8ew69-0M7XP2zoSVh3jhCciYDRVF0i24d=sQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACXZuxd30jwczag_GHW3cmqPcBybEi7jfwfku81vW2nHzo_kyA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMHZB6FH7431uaYzuQN4jxhwMSYHLXjrVkUs4xuwsvUsAgkDBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Return-path: <linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com ([74.125.82.54]:37315 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751331AbdHFRET (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sun, 6 Aug 2017 13:04:19 -0400
Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id t201so52585614wmt.0
        for <linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org>; Sun, 06 Aug 2017 10:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMHZB6FH7431uaYzuQN4jxhwMSYHLXjrVkUs4xuwsvUsAgkDBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org
To: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
Cc: Christopher Li <sparse@chrisli.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Linux-Sparse <linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org>

On 6 August 2017 at 17:56, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Dibyendu Majumdar
> <mobile@majumdar.org.uk> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to assert that in the C code there was no attempt to
>> access uninitialized value. If you have a look at the original report
>> here:
>>
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-sparse&m=149070715427276&w=2
>>
>> You will see that the C code assigns a value to the field before
>> attempting to access it as shown below.
>>
>> s3.onebit = 1;
>> if(s3.onebit != 1){
>> }
>
> True but this should be solved by patch b1672eab399fdce2c050e8aa07767489a2071981
> available since -rc1.
> Isn't it the case?
>

Wouldn't have thought so - as the variable is not initialized at the
point of declaration. The assignment occurs after declaring the struct
variable s3.

I haven't tried that patch though.

Regards
Dibyendu