On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Lennart Poettering
<lenn...@poettering.net> wrote:
> 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?
The warning in namespace_open is not related to LTO. It shows up with
"autogen.sh g && make" and that gets in the way for my workflow. It
would make my life easier if we could silence it with the fix in this
patch or suppress it with
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wmaybe-uninitialized"
Would that be okay?
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
