On 09/08/2017 03:36 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
* Philippe Mathieu-Daudé ([email protected]) wrote:
On 09/08/2017 01:22 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
* Philippe Mathieu-Daudé ([email protected]) wrote:
Hi David,
On 09/08/2017 12:53 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) wrote:
From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <[email protected]>
e.g.
./x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 -nographic -netdev
'user,id=vnet,hostfwd=:555.0.0.0:0-:22'
qemu-system-x86_64: -netdev user,id=vnet,hostfwd=:555.0.0.0:0-:22: Invalid host
forwarding rule ':555.0.0.0:0-:22' (Bad host address)
Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <[email protected]>
---
net/slirp.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/slirp.c b/net/slirp.c
index 01ed21c006..d87664d42e 100644
--- a/net/slirp.c
+++ b/net/slirp.c
@@ -496,9 +496,11 @@ static int slirp_hostfwd(SlirpState *s, const char
*redir_str,
char buf[256];
int is_udp;
char *end;
+ const char *fail_reason = "";
Isn't it better not initialize this? So if one add a new failed syntax case
the build with abort with -Werror=uninitialized
I never quite trust compilers to spot it or not-moan even though
every route to failure will have set it.
I see, what about:
const char *fail_reason = "Unknown reason";
I could, but you're right that I shouldn't miss any, and
'Unknown Reason' doesn't tell the user any more than no message.
It's not you I'm worried about ;) but if someone adds a new forward
layer tomorrow (sctp, udplite, rudp...)
