On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 02:21:47PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > In message <CAG5KPzw_cOfFLX_kn=5DWAX+z+9VeXuzo3Q8YekDJG37tDQ_wQ@mail.gmail.com> > Ben Laurie <[email protected]> wrote: > > >But that would then hide the error condition of it being not set to a > >new value after initialisation. > > The (modified/quieted) code example under discussion is as follows: > > variable = value0; /* initialization */ > if (condition) variable = value1; > if (!condition) variable = value2; > use (variable); > > Please note that variable *is* *always* set to some value (either value1 > or value2) after initialization. The "error condition" that you seem > concerned about having explicitly flagged does not in fact exist in the > example code snippet under discussion. > > >One better answer would be to have a way to annotate that after the > >two conditionals you assert that |variable| is initialised. Then a > >future, smarter static analyzer can attempt to prove you wrong. > > Sir, is there any sense in which the final line of the above example > _does not_ already and standing all by itself constitute an implicit > assertion that "variable" has been initialized by that point in the > code? I do believe you are right . . . at least until the code needs to be edited for some reason. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"