Tom Lane wrote: > I asked some gcc experts at Red Hat about the new variable-may-be-used- > uninitialized warnings that gcc 4.x reports. These occur in cases > like > > int i, j; > ... > foo(&i, &j); > // use i and j > > I had thought that gcc was being stricter about the possibility that the > called function might not set its output parameters, but the true story > is entirely different. There's been no change in the strictness of the > check for external function calls. What is happening is that if foo() > is static and gcc chooses to inline it into the calling function, you > will now see a warning if the transformed code fails the check. In > essence this means that there is a code path through foo() that doesn't > set the output parameter. > > Armed with that knowledge, we can fix these warnings by ensuring the > callee sets the output parameters in all code paths; which is often > cleaner than having the caller initialize the variables before call, > as I was afraid we'd have to do. > > I'll work on cleaning these up.
Wow, that is a nifty complier check. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
