On Mon, 19.05.14 19:52, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote:
> > _public_ int sd_peer_get_session(int fd, char **session) {
> > - struct ucred ucred;
> > + struct ucred ucred = {};
>
> I can't reproduce this warning, but more importantly, why is this
> necessary in this function and not the subsequent noes (which all seem
> to be more or less equivalent)?
Hmm, given the current flakiness of the gcc warnings when -flto is in
the mix I think we should follow the rule that we do not fix gcc
warnings that show up only with -flto is used. We can revisit that in a
few years when LTO has settled a bit, but for now I am pretty sure
trying to fix all those issues is a waste of time and certainly don't
improve our code...
Cristian, are those warnings you saw related to -flto?
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
