a5061f8f57
Depending on how the "middle-end" (yes, the gcc developers are serious about that) optimizer ends up mangling the code, there may or may not be a complaint about x being used uninitialized when it's clearly not used at all. So instead, why keep x in the first place? memcpy(foo, NULL, 0) is the same as memcpy(foo, some_uninitialized_variable, 0) in that it does nothing. Change-Id: Ib0a97c3e3fd1a2a6aff37da63376373c88ac595d Signed-off-by: Patrick Georgi <pgeorgi@google.com> Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/55499 Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org> Reviewed-by: Angel Pons <th3fanbus@gmail.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| intel | ||
| lockdown | ||
| memory | ||
| tpm | ||
| vboot | ||
| Kconfig | ||
| Makefile.inc | ||