On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Dan Hipschman wrote:
> Compiling with "-O2 -W -Wall" using either gcc 4.0 or 3.4 I don't get
> any warnings. Even adding -Wuninitialized doesn't do anything:
I am mostly using GCC 3.4 with -O2 -Wall as you did, and occasionally
a snapshot of GCC 4.3, with and without -Wextra
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 07:07:15PM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> To get uninitialized warnings, you have to also specify
> optimization (-O2). Without -O, gcc doesn't
> do the analysis that can detect uninitialized variables.
Compiling with "-O2 -W -Wall" using either gcc 4.0 or 3.4 I don't get
any w
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Dan Hipschman wrote:
> The logic is as follows:
Thanks for the explanation, Dan!
> Better than this would be to put "assert(is_user_type(type));" above the
> initializations to convince the programmer at least that name will get
> initialized correctly in get_user_type. If
Dan H. wrote:
> If you tell me what options you build with and I can reproduce the
> warning then I'll be more than happy to try to fix it. I build widl
> with -W -Wall and get two warnings.
To get uninitialized warnings, you have to also specify
optimization (-O2). Without -O, gcc doesn't
do th
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 01:26:45AM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> I think the question is whether a compiler can reasonably be expected
> to deduce that the source is fine. If that deduction involves solving
> the halting problem (or similar) hacking the source to avoid the warning
> actually does
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 01:51:34PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> In tools/widl/typegen.c we have the following snippet
>
> static void write_user_tfs(FILE *file, type_t *type, unsigned int *tafsoff)
> {
> unsigned int start, absoff, flags;
> unsigned int align = 0, ualign = 0;
> c
