Re: [PATCH 0/4] drop some int x = x hacks to silence gcc warnings

2013-03-22 Thread Jeff King
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:44:02AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: I am for dropping = x and leaving it uninitialized at the declaration site, or explicitly initializing it to some reasonable starting value (e.g. NULL if it is a pointer) and adding a comment to say that the

[PATCH 0/4] drop some int x = x hacks to silence gcc warnings

2013-03-21 Thread Jeff King
I was fooling around with clang and noticed that it complains about the int x = x construct under -Wall. That is IMHO a deficiency in clang, since the idiom has a well-defined use in silencing -Wuninitialized warnings. But I've also always been nervous about the idiom, because it's easy to get the

Re: [PATCH 0/4] drop some int x = x hacks to silence gcc warnings

2013-03-21 Thread Johannes Sixt
Am 3/21/2013 12:03, schrieb Jeff King: I was fooling around with clang and noticed that it complains about the int x = x construct under -Wall. That is IMHO a deficiency in clang, since the idiom has a well-defined use in silencing -Wuninitialized warnings. IMO, that's a myth. The construct

Re: [PATCH 0/4] drop some int x = x hacks to silence gcc warnings

2013-03-21 Thread Jeff King
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:45:37PM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote: Am 3/21/2013 12:03, schrieb Jeff King: I was fooling around with clang and noticed that it complains about the int x = x construct under -Wall. That is IMHO a deficiency in clang, since the idiom has a well-defined use in

Re: [PATCH 0/4] drop some int x = x hacks to silence gcc warnings

2013-03-21 Thread Joachim Schmitz
Johannes Sixt wrote: Am 3/21/2013 12:03, schrieb Jeff King: I was fooling around with clang and noticed that it complains about the int x = x construct under -Wall. That is IMHO a deficiency in clang, since the idiom has a well-defined use in silencing -Wuninitialized warnings. IMO, that's a

Re: [PATCH 0/4] drop some int x = x hacks to silence gcc warnings

2013-03-21 Thread Joachim Schmitz
Joachim Schmitz wrote: Johannes Sixt wrote: Am 3/21/2013 12:03, schrieb Jeff King: I was fooling around with clang and noticed that it complains about the int x = x construct under -Wall. That is IMHO a deficiency in clang, since the idiom has a well-defined use in silencing -Wuninitialized

Re: [PATCH 0/4] drop some int x = x hacks to silence gcc warnings

2013-03-21 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: Git code was my introduction to it, too, and I was led to believe it was idiomatic, so I can't speak further on that. I think it was Junio who introduced me to it, so maybe he can shed more light on the history. I think we picked the convention up from the

Re: [PATCH 0/4] drop some int x = x hacks to silence gcc warnings

2013-03-21 Thread Junio C Hamano
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes: Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: Git code was my introduction to it, too, and I was led to believe it was idiomatic, so I can't speak further on that. I think it was Junio who introduced me to it, so maybe he can shed more light on the history. I

Re: [PATCH 0/4] drop some int x = x hacks to silence gcc warnings

2013-03-21 Thread Jeff King
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 08:19:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: $ git grep '#define uninitialized_var' include/ include/linux/compiler-gcc.h:#define uninitialized_var(x) x = x include/linux/compiler-intel.h:#define uninitialized_var(x) x but they recently had a discussion,

Re: [PATCH 0/4] drop some int x = x hacks to silence gcc warnings

2013-03-21 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Jeff King wrote: Two patches to follow. [5/4]: fast-import: clarify inline logic in file_change_m This one is clearly a bug / missing feature in gcc's control flow analysis, but your workaround looks reasonable. [6/4]: run-command: always set failed_errno in start_command Very sane.