[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] gallivm: init MM = NULL to silence warning

[Brian Paul]

On 03/04/2015 07:08 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> On 04/03/15 12:58, Jose Fonseca wrote:
>> On 04/03/15 04:20, Matt Turner wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Brian Paul <brianp at vmware.com> wrote:
>>>> ---
>>>>   src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_misc.cpp | 2 +-
>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_misc.cpp
>>>> b/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_misc.cpp
>>>> index 5210acc..e2578cf 100644
>>>> --- a/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_misc.cpp
>>>> +++ b/src/gallium/auxiliary/gallivm/lp_bld_misc.cpp
>>>> @@ -493,7 +493,7 @@
>>>> lp_build_create_jit_compiler_for_module(LLVMExecutionEngineRef *OutJIT,
>>>>      builder.setMCPU(MCPU);
>>>>   #endif
>>>>
>>>> -   ShaderMemoryManager *MM;
>>>> +   ShaderMemoryManager *MM = NULL;
>>>>      if (useMCJIT) {
>>>>   #if HAVE_LLVM > 0x0303
>>>>          BaseMemoryManager* JMM =
>>>> reinterpret_cast<BaseMemoryManager*>(CMM);
>>>> --
>>>> 1.9.1
>>>
>>> I'm guessing it's the 'delete MM;' that generates the warning? If so,
>>> shouldn't you just wrap it in #if HAVE_LLVM > ...?
>>>
>>> I think MCJIT is the only option in llvm >= 3.6? The code could
>>> probably be trivially refactored to avoid the assert(0) as well.
>>>
>>>  From what I can tell, it seems like adding initializers is nearly
>>> always the wrong thing to do.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mesa-dev mailing list
>>> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.freedesktop.org_mailman_listinfo_mesa-2Ddev&d=AwIGaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=zfmBZnnVGHeYde45pMKNnVyzeaZbdIqVLprmZCM2zzE&m=eFrgqffTZg-fVfsgBecewE76PU07pVGCehKDjd2rc2Q&s=NmdJuPH44mfwP-iaquREc8ZPTboVxNFpMQhNXlMv2FY&e=
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, this is probably related to
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__bugs.freedesktop.org_show-5Fbug.cgi-3Fid-3D89387&d=AwIGaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=zfmBZnnVGHeYde45pMKNnVyzeaZbdIqVLprmZCM2zzE&m=QY0p_bDuP-f3LPn9v8UCnsJc9MFPxmK5yIA_AQLYfpk&s=QtRiKhT6OE4Vfm-MYI7OR5SNu_iqhBPIOUnOp_5tmTc&e=
>>
>>
>> But unfortunately I haven't found time to catch up with it.
>
> On closer look, this is a different issue.  As Matt said, the issue is
> the delete for older LLVM.
>
> That said, `delete NULL` is safe, hence Brian's patch is good.

I think this is simplest.  Matt, if you look at the rest of the 
neighboring code, MM gets assigned (basically) if (using MCJIT and llvm 
 >= 303) or llvm < 306 so it's kind of complex condition.  Just init'int 
to null is the simplest solution.

I'll take Jose's comment as an R-b.

-Brian