The compiler cannot determine whether the return values of the xtensa_operand_is_register(isa, opc, opnd)
and xtensa_operand_is_visible(isa, opc, opnd) functions are the same.
So,it assumes that 'rf' is not assigned, but it's used.
The compiler showed warning:
target/xtensa/translate.c: In function ‘disas_xtensa_insn’:
target/xtensa/translate.c:985:43: warning: ‘rf’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
985 | arg[vopnd].num_bits = xtensa_regfile_num_bits(isa, rf);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Add a default value for 'rf' to prevented the warning.
Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.robot@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
---
Cc: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
---
target/xtensa/translate.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/target/xtensa/translate.c b/target/xtensa/translate.c
index 944a157747..eea851bbe7 100644
--- a/target/xtensa/translate.c
+++ b/target/xtensa/translate.c
@@ -953,7 +953,7 @@ static void disas_xtensa_insn(CPUXtensaState *env, DisasContext *dc)
for (opnd = vopnd = 0; opnd < opnds; ++opnd) {
void **register_file = NULL;
- xtensa_regfile rf;
+ xtensa_regfile rf = -1;
if (xtensa_operand_is_register(isa, opc, opnd)) {
rf = xtensa_operand_regfile(isa, opc, opnd);
--
2.27.0
On 11/3/20 2:52 AM, Chen Qun wrote:
> The compiler cannot determine whether the return values of the xtensa_operand_is_register(isa, opc, opnd)
> and xtensa_operand_is_visible(isa, opc, opnd) functions are the same.
> So,it assumes that 'rf' is not assigned, but it's used.
>
> The compiler showed warning:
> target/xtensa/translate.c: In function ‘disas_xtensa_insn’:
> target/xtensa/translate.c:985:43: warning: ‘rf’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> 985 | arg[vopnd].num_bits = xtensa_regfile_num_bits(isa, rf);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Add a default value for 'rf' to prevented the warning.
>
> Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.robot@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
> ---
> Cc: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
> ---
> target/xtensa/translate.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/xtensa/translate.c b/target/xtensa/translate.c
> index 944a157747..eea851bbe7 100644
> --- a/target/xtensa/translate.c
> +++ b/target/xtensa/translate.c
> @@ -953,7 +953,7 @@ static void disas_xtensa_insn(CPUXtensaState *env, DisasContext *dc)
>
> for (opnd = vopnd = 0; opnd < opnds; ++opnd) {
> void **register_file = NULL;
> - xtensa_regfile rf;
> + xtensa_regfile rf = -1;
NAck (code smells).
Deferring to Max, but possible fix:
-- >8 --
@@ -953,10 +953,9 @@ static void disas_xtensa_insn(CPUXtensaState *env,
DisasContext *dc)
for (opnd = vopnd = 0; opnd < opnds; ++opnd) {
void **register_file = NULL;
- xtensa_regfile rf;
+ xtensa_regfile rf = xtensa_operand_regfile(isa, opc, opnd);
if (xtensa_operand_is_register(isa, opc, opnd)) {
- rf = xtensa_operand_regfile(isa, opc, opnd);
register_file = dc->config->regfile[rf];
if (rf == dc->config->a_regfile) {
---
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 5:52 PM Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> The compiler cannot determine whether the return values of the xtensa_operand_is_register(isa, opc, opnd)
> and xtensa_operand_is_visible(isa, opc, opnd) functions are the same.
It doesn't have to because 1) they definitely are not the same, but
2) it doesn't matter.
> So,it assumes that 'rf' is not assigned, but it's used.
The assumption is wrong. rf is used under the 'if (register_file)'
condition and register_file is initialized to NULL and then set
to something non-NULL based on the value of rf here:
958 if (xtensa_operand_is_register(isa, opc, opnd)) {
959 rf = xtensa_operand_regfile(isa, opc, opnd);
960 register_file = dc->config->regfile[rf];
> The compiler showed warning:
> target/xtensa/translate.c: In function ‘disas_xtensa_insn’:
> target/xtensa/translate.c:985:43: warning: ‘rf’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> 985 | arg[vopnd].num_bits = xtensa_regfile_num_bits(isa, rf);
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Add a default value for 'rf' to prevented the warning.
I don't see it doing default build with gcc 8.3. But then I don't see
-Wmaybe-uninitialized in the compiler command line either.
> Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.robot@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
> ---
> Cc: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
> ---
> target/xtensa/translate.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/xtensa/translate.c b/target/xtensa/translate.c
> index 944a157747..eea851bbe7 100644
> --- a/target/xtensa/translate.c
> +++ b/target/xtensa/translate.c
> @@ -953,7 +953,7 @@ static void disas_xtensa_insn(CPUXtensaState *env, DisasContext *dc)
>
> for (opnd = vopnd = 0; opnd < opnds; ++opnd) {
> void **register_file = NULL;
> - xtensa_regfile rf;
> + xtensa_regfile rf = -1;
Please use XTENSA_UNDEFINED instead if you still think this
is worth changing.
--
Thanks.
-- Max
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Filippov [mailto:jcmvbkbc@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 5:22 PM
> To: Chenqun (kuhn) <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
> Cc: qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; QEMU Trivial
> <qemu-trivial@nongnu.org>; Zhanghailiang
> <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>; ganqixin <ganqixin@huawei.com>; Euler
> Robot <euler.robot@huawei.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] target/xtensa: fix uninitialized variable warning
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 5:52 PM Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > The compiler cannot determine whether the return values of the
> > xtensa_operand_is_register(isa, opc, opnd) and
> xtensa_operand_is_visible(isa, opc, opnd) functions are the same.
>
> It doesn't have to because 1) they definitely are not the same, but
> 2) it doesn't matter.
>
> > So,it assumes that 'rf' is not assigned, but it's used.
>
> The assumption is wrong. rf is used under the 'if (register_file)'
> condition and register_file is initialized to NULL and then set to something
> non-NULL based on the value of rf here:
>
Hi Max,
Yeah, your analysis is correct. This rf is used only when register_file is non-NULL. When this condition is met, the rf must have been assigned a value.
The GCC 9.3 compilation I use contains the Wmaybe-uninitialized parameter by default. It cannot recognize this complex logic judgment.
This warning may be frequently encountered by developers who compile this part of code.
> 958 if (xtensa_operand_is_register(isa, opc, opnd)) {
> 959 rf = xtensa_operand_regfile(isa, opc, opnd);
> 960 register_file = dc->config->regfile[rf];
>
> > The compiler showed warning:
> > target/xtensa/translate.c: In function ‘disas_xtensa_insn’:
> > target/xtensa/translate.c:985:43: warning: ‘rf’ may be used uninitialized in
> this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> > 985 | arg[vopnd].num_bits =
> xtensa_regfile_num_bits(isa, rf);
> > |
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Add a default value for 'rf' to prevented the warning.
>
> I don't see it doing default build with gcc 8.3. But then I don't see
> -Wmaybe-uninitialized in the compiler command line either.
>
Maybe it's available after GCC9, or some CFLAG configuration.
The -Wmaybe-uninitialized parameter has this description:
"These warnings are only possible in optimizing compilation, because otherwise GCC does not keep track of the state of variables."
From:https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html#Warning-Options
I have tried to configure only "-O2 -fexceptions" for the CFLAG on GCC9, and this warning will occur.
> > Reported-by: Euler Robot <euler.robot@huawei.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Chen Qun <kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > Cc: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > target/xtensa/translate.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/target/xtensa/translate.c b/target/xtensa/translate.c
> > index 944a157747..eea851bbe7 100644
> > --- a/target/xtensa/translate.c
> > +++ b/target/xtensa/translate.c
> > @@ -953,7 +953,7 @@ static void disas_xtensa_insn(CPUXtensaState *env,
> > DisasContext *dc)
> >
> > for (opnd = vopnd = 0; opnd < opnds; ++opnd) {
> > void **register_file = NULL;
> > - xtensa_regfile rf;
> > + xtensa_regfile rf = -1;
>
> Please use XTENSA_UNDEFINED instead if you still think this is worth changing.
>
I don't think it's wrong, it's just a bit of trouble for the compiler :)
Thanks,
Chen Qun
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.