On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 21:22:04 +1000 David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:cppcheck-2.15.0 has apparently broadened when it throws a warning about redundant initialization to include some cases where we have an initializer for some fields, but then set other fields in the function body. This is arguably a false positive: although we are technically overwriting the zero-initialization the compiler supplies for fields not explicitly initialized, this sort of construct makes sense when there are some fields we know at the top of the function where the initializer is, but others that require more complex calculation. That said, in the two places this shows up, it's pretty easy to work around. The results are arguably slightly clearer than what we had, since they move the parts of the initialization closer together. So do that rather than having ugly suppressions or dealing with the tedious process of reporting a cppcheck false positive. Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au>Applied. -- Stefano