On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:49:25AM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 14.12.2012 23:09, schrieb Jeff King:
> > Can anybody think of a clever way to expose the constant return value of
> > error() to the compiler? We could do it with a macro, but that is also
> > out for error(), as we do not assume
Am 14.12.2012 23:09, schrieb Jeff King:
> Can anybody think of a clever way to expose the constant return value of
> error() to the compiler? We could do it with a macro, but that is also
> out for error(), as we do not assume the compiler has variadic macros. I
> guess we could hide it behind "#if
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:07:54AM +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
> > If get_foo() is not inlined, then when compiling some_fun, gcc sees only
> > that a pointer to the local variable is passed, and must assume that it
> > is an out parameter that is initialized after get_foo returns.
> >
> >
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> I always compile git with "gcc -Wall -Werror", because it catches a lot
> of dubious constructs, and we usually keep the code warning-free.
> However, I also typically compile with "-O0" because I end up debugging
> a fair bit.
>
> Sometimes, tho
I always compile git with "gcc -Wall -Werror", because it catches a lot
of dubious constructs, and we usually keep the code warning-free.
However, I also typically compile with "-O0" because I end up debugging
a fair bit.
Sometimes, though, I compile with -O3, which yields a bunch of new
"variable
5 matches
Mail list logo
