This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: PATCH: Initialize tmp_obstack
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, "H.J. Lu" <hongjiu dot lu at intel dot com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:59:38 -0500
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Initialize tmp_obstack
- References: <20061202182712.GA623@lucon.org> <20061205204003.GB25572@nevyn.them.org> <12601.163.1.150.229.1165354805.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> <20061205214306.GA29801@nevyn.them.org> <20637.163.1.150.229.1165355320.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> <20061205215639.GA30371@nevyn.them.org> <20061205235848.GA2551@nevyn.them.org> <20061207144018.GA12915@nevyn.them.org> <20061225040032.GA29719@nevyn.them.org>
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 11:00:32PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 09:40:18AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:58:48PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > Since there's disagreement about this patch, I have reverted it. We
> > > can put it back in when there's consensus.
> >
> > Unfortunately, when I reverted it the discussion stopped dead without
> > advancing towards consensus.
> >
> > What do we do about this warning?
>
> No one has replied. While I agree that GCC is not being very helpful
> here, I don't anticipate a reliable compiler fix, and it's really
> beginning to frustrate me that I can't use -Werror on my laptop
> (I'm travelling).
>
> Mark, how strongly do you object to HJ's workaround? If it's
> unacceptable, will you volunteer to simplify the affected functions
> to avoid the warning?
I'm travelling again - excuse spotty response this week, please. But
that means I'm hacking on GDB on my laptop again, which is affected by
this problem.
How can we avoid the uninitialized warnings?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery