timestamp_before_wait might be used uninitialized in this function

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Tuesday 13 January 2009 19:21, walter harms wrote:
> Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn schrieb:
> > I see this warning, and I don't like it:
> > 
> > busybox-1.13.2/networking/udhcp/dhcpc.c:
> > In function `udhcpc_main':
> > busybox-1.13.2/networking/udhcp/dhcpc.c:321:
> > warning: `timestamp_before_wait' might be used uninitialized in this function
> > 
> > Is this patch appropriate?
> > 
> > --- busybox-1.13.2/networking/udhcp/dhcpc.c.~1~	2008-11-09 18:27:58.000000000 +0100
> > +++ busybox-1.13.2/networking/udhcp/dhcpc.c	2009-01-13 13:09:30.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -342,7 +342,8 @@
> >  				/* Else: an error occured, panic! */
> >  				bb_perror_msg_and_die("select");
> >  			}
> > -		}
> > +		} else
> > +			timestamp_before_wait = 0;
> > 
> >  		/* If timeout dropped to zero, time to become active:
> >  		 * resend discover/renew/whatever
> > 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> 
> maybe a simple
>   unsigned timestamp_before_wait=0;
> 
> will do the same ?

Yes. but

unsigned timestamp_before_wait = timestamp_before_wait;

is better wrt code size. :)

fixed. thanks.

> btw: can unsigned be replaced with unsigned int or whatever is useful here ?

?! "unsigned" and "unsigned int" are the same.
--
vda