| commit | a5061f8f5772e59725c8e89e02b9dff10735e915 | |
| author | Patrick Georgi <pgeorgi@google.com> | |
| Mon, 14 Jun 2021 15:12:58 +0000 (14 17:12 +0200) | ||
| committer | Patrick Georgi <pgeorgi@google.com> | |
| Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:46:47 +0000 (15 19:46 +0000) | ||
| tree | 47596bde32b38c1eff00d8ed73f44b09ff53a1d6 | treesnapshot (tar.gz zip) |
| parent | 47ad2ae3f984ffa6fb3803bdbea6bd7d96bad819 | commitdiff |
tpm/tss: Remove local variable
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>
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>
| src/security/tpm/tss/tcg-1.2/tss.c | diffblobblamehistory |