On Wed, 21.05.14 10:29, Thomas H.P. Andersen (pho...@gmail.com) wrote: > > 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?
Ok, fixed that one. It is a false positive, but I can see why gcc gets confused, and this sounds OK to fix. Have done so now. Please test! Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel