This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 13 Jan 2016 10:02, Martin Sebor wrote: > In his comments on the bug, Carlos suggests to fix these instances > of false positives and to get -O1 to work. The attached patch > does just that. In the patch, to minimize the impact of the > (otherwise unnecessary) initialization, rather than initializing > them for all the code paths, I reduced the scope of the local > variables that are subject to the warning and added the redundant > initialization only for the problem code paths. This led to more > changes that would otherwise be required but resulted in code > that's easier to follow. any time code is changed to address warnings, especially "harmless" ones, the first question is "has the compiled output changed". if gcc produces worse code at -O2, then this is probably not the right direction. > The patch also adds -Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized to the warning > options when -O1 or lower is set in CFLAGS to prevent these false > positives from causing build failures. This change renders the > changes above strictly unnecessary. I include both since I think > both are worthwhile but I can remove one or the other if others > have a different preference. i'm in favor of this myself. we clearly do not test -O1 as the normal course of things, so it'll be perpetually broken. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |