FWIW, I confirmed with HP that the aCC warning is bogus (i.e., it's a compiler bug). The gcc warning looks suspicious too but I'm not 100% sure it's a bug. Since the warning comes out of a library header (and will pop up in pretty much every translation unit that #includes the header) IMO it's important to silence it. IIRC, there might even be something about it in our release policy -- which, incidentally, we still need to bring up for a vote...
Martin -----Original Message----- From: Travis Vitek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 2/26/2008 3:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: svn commit: r631410 - /stdcxx/trunk/include/loc/_money_put.cc >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Author: vitek >Date: Tue Feb 26 14:41:46 2008 >New Revision: 631410 > >URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=631410&view=rev >Log: > >2008-02-26 Travis Vitek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * include/loc/_money_put.cc: Eliminate uninitialized variable > warning. > > >Modified: > stdcxx/trunk/include/loc/_money_put.cc > I just looked at this, and I've apparently made a small boo-boo. Martin, you originally made a similar change on trunk some time ago. http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=330842 Just recently, you undid that change to resolve a warning on HP. http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=627612 So I've just undone your fix for HP in a way that isn't consistent with what is on the branches/4.2.x. Ugh. So now the question is, what should we be doing here. We have conflicting warnings. I'm actually a little surprised that the HP compiler doesn't warn if the values are left uninitialized. Instead of a potential null pointer dereference, you would have a potential garbage pointer dereference, which in some cases may be worse. Should I just undo my 'fix' on trunk, or should I take a half hour to try and find a way to placate both compilers? Travis
