[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] drm: msm: avoid false-positive -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Laurent Pinchart
<> wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
> Thank you for the patch.
> On Monday, 4 December 2017 16:44:23 EET Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> gcc-8 -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc produces a false-positive warning:
>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/mdp/mdp5/mdp5_plane.c: In function
>> 'mdp5_plane_mode_set.isra.8':
>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/mdp/mdp5/mdp5_plane.c:1053:3: error: 'crtc_x_r' may be
>> used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>> It's relatively clear from reading the source that this cannot happen,
>> and older compilers get it right. This rearranges the code remove
>> the two affected variables, which reliably avoids the problem.
>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <>
> The patch looks good to me, so
> Acked-by: Laurent Pinchart <>
> However I think it would also be useful to file a bug report for gcc,
> especially if older versions got this right.

I was rather close to it, and even spent time on a reduced test case
with "creduce", which came down to

int drm_rect_width_r_0, calc_phase_step_src, calc_scalex_steps_ret,
calc_scalex_steps_dest, calc_scaley_steps_ret, calc_scaley_steps_dest,
struct mdp5_hw_pipe {
int caps;
} * mdp5_plane_mode_set_right_hwpipe;
int fn1(int p1) {
if (calc_phase_step_src || p1 == 0)
return 2;
if (calc_phase_step_src > p1)
return 5;
return 0;
int fn2() {
struct mdp5_hw_pipe hwpipe = hwpipe;
int src_x_r;
if (mdp5_plane_mode_set_right_hwpipe)
src_x_r = drm_rect_width_r_0;
calc_scalex_steps_ret = fn1(calc_scalex_steps_dest);
if (calc_scalex_steps_ret)
return calc_scalex_steps_ret;
calc_scaley_steps_ret = fn1(calc_scaley_steps_dest);
if (calc_scaley_steps_ret)
return calc_scaley_steps_ret;
if (hwpipe.caps)
if (mdp5_plane_mode_set_right_hwpipe)
mdp5_plane_mode_set___trans_tmp_2 = src_x_r;
return calc_scaley_steps_ret;

This is still not something that is "obviously" wrong, it seems rather
that gcc can't keep track of enough state at the same time, which
is a fundamental problem but also a bit unpredictable.

I've seen many false-positive (and also false-negative) -Wmaybe-uninitialized
warnings that are likely easier to fix than this particular one, so I
ended up not reporting it.


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-04 17:59    [W:0.037 / U:21.332 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site