Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/2] tests: Avoid "jump skips variable initialization" with GCC 9.

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 04:38:25PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 15:13:21 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > GCC 9 gives pages of errors like: > > > > qemumonitorjsontest.c: In function 'mymain': > > qemumonitorjsontest.c:2904:9: error: jump skips variable initialization [-Werror=jump-misses-init] > > 2904 | goto cleanup; > > | ^~~~ > > qemumonitorjsontest.c:3111:2: note: label 'cleanup' defined here > > 3111 | cleanup: > > | ^~~~~~~ > > qemumonitorjsontest.c:2920:54: note: '({anonymous})' declared here > > 2920 | simpleFunc = (testQemuMonitorJSONSimpleFuncData) {.xmlopt = driver.xmlopt, \ > > | ^ > > qemumonitorjsontest.c:3008:5: note: in expansion of macro 'DO_TEST_GEN' > > 3008 | DO_TEST_GEN(qemuMonitorJSONBlockdevMediumInsert); > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > By moving the cleanup section up near the top of the function we can > > avoid this. I think a better way might be to disable the warning. > > --- > > tests/qemumonitorjsontest.c | 10 ++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/qemumonitorjsontest.c b/tests/qemumonitorjsontest.c > > index 1a8a31717f..299c5f0cbe 100644 > > --- a/tests/qemumonitorjsontest.c > > +++ b/tests/qemumonitorjsontest.c > > @@ -2900,8 +2900,12 @@ mymain(void) > > > > if (!(qapiData.schema = testQEMUSchemaLoad())) { > > VIR_TEST_VERBOSE("failed to load qapi schema\n"); > > - ret = -1; > > - goto cleanup; > > + cleanup: > > + VIR_FREE(metaschemastr); > > + virJSONValueFree(metaschema); > > + virHashFree(qapiData.schema); > > + qemuTestDriverFree(&driver); > > + return -1; > > } > > > > #define DO_TEST(name) \ > > @@ -3098,7 +3102,6 @@ mymain(void) > > if (!(metaschema = testQEMUSchemaGetLatest()) || > > !(metaschemastr = virJSONValueToString(metaschema, false))) { > > VIR_TEST_VERBOSE("failed to load latest qapi schema\n"); > > - ret = -1; > > goto cleanup; > > We generally avoid jumps back. Also cleanup really should be at the end. > > Wouldn't be enough just to memset the few structs at the beginning? No, this appears to be another GCC regression. IMHO the following should not warn, yet it does:

This doesn't appear to be reported to GCC upstream yet