On 06/05/16 19:54, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ramsay Jones <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> The patch below applies to master (I haven't checked for any more
>> additions).
>>
>> if (bisect_list) {
>> - int reaches = reaches, all = all;
>> + int reaches = 0, all = 0;
>
> One thing that is somewhat sad is that this makes future readers
> wonder if these values '0' are sensible initial values.
>
> Having to wonder "is it sensible to initialize this variable to 0?
> Shouldn't it be initialized to INT_MAX instead?" is wasting their
> time exactly because we _know_ these are not even "initial values".
> We know these do not have to be initialized, because some more
> appropriate values will get assigned to them before they are used,
> and have these only because some compilers get it wrong.
>
> The original "reaches = reaches" had the documentation value (at
> least for those who knew the convention) to save the readers from
> wasting their time that way. Now these 0 are indistinguishable from
> the other initializations that require to be zero.
Ah, I think I remember now why I hadn't sent this patch before. ;-)
[This started off as one patch, was then split into two (int and pointer),
and then back into one again - presumably because I had by that time
forgotten why I split it up!]
I have a very vague recollection of you expressing your dislike of
these parts of the patch before. I had intended to investigate why
gcc was incorrectly issuing these warnings - but I couldn't get my
currently installed compiler to complain. That would have meant
building various gcc versions, so that I could bisect ...
So, that's why I didn't get around to it ... :-D
I still can't get gcc to complain, e.g. (on top of above):
$ git diff
diff --git a/builtin/rev-list.c b/builtin/rev-list.c
index deae1f3..845fcdc 100644
--- a/builtin/rev-list.c
+++ b/builtin/rev-list.c
@@ -377,7 +377,7 @@ int cmd_rev_list(int argc, const char **argv, const char
*prefix)
mark_edges_uninteresting(&revs, show_edge);
if (bisect_list) {
- int reaches = 0, all = 0;
+ int reaches, all;
revs.commits = find_bisection(revs.commits, &reaches, &all,
bisect_find_all);
$ rm builtin/rev-list.o
$ make V=1 CFLAGS='-g -O3 -Wall -Wextra -Wuninitialized
-Wno-unused-parameter' builtin/rev-list.o
cc -o builtin/rev-list.o -c -MF builtin/.depend/rev-list.o.d -MQ
builtin/rev-list.o -MMD -MP -g -O3 -Wall -Wextra -Wuninitialized
-Wno-unused-parameter -I. -DHAVE_ALLOCA_H -DUSE_CURL_FOR_IMAP_SEND
-DHAVE_PATHS_H -DHAVE_DEV_TTY -DXDL_FAST_HASH -DHAVE_CLOCK_GETTIME
-DHAVE_CLOCK_MONOTONIC -DHAVE_GETDELIM -DSHA1_HEADER='<openssl/sha.h>'
-DNO_STRLCPY -DNO_MKSTEMPS -DSHELL_PATH='"/bin/sh"' builtin/rev-list.c
In file included from ./cache.h:4:0,
from builtin/rev-list.c:1:
./git-compat-util.h: In function ‘xsize_t’:
./git-compat-util.h:838:10: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned
integer expressions [-Wsign-compare]
if (len > (size_t) len)
^
$
[Note: gcc (Ubuntu 4.8.4-2ubuntu1~14.04.1) 4.8.4]
>
>> diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
>> index d9fb78b..978d6b6 100644
>> --- a/read-cache.c
>> +++ b/read-cache.c
>> @@ -1870,7 +1870,7 @@ static int ce_write_entry(git_SHA_CTX *c, int fd,
>> struct cache_entry *ce,
>> {
>> int size;
>> struct ondisk_cache_entry *ondisk;
>> - int saved_namelen = saved_namelen; /* compiler workaround */
>> + int saved_namelen = 0;
>
> I wonder if can we come up with a short and sweet notation to remind
> futhre readers that this "initialization" is not initializing but
> merely squelching warnings from stupid compilers, and agree to use
> it consistently?
Nothing comes to mind.
Do current compilers complain?
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
