From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-11243-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 24041 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2001 19:43:06 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 23655 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2001 19:41:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2001 19:41:49 -0000
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian))
	id 16Dsmm-0005xB-00; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 14:41:52 -0500
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:43:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch/ob]
Message-ID: <20011211144152.A22746@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
References: <3C164DDD.5020904@cygnus.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3C164DDD.5020904@cygnus.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i
X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00310.txt.bz2

On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:18:05AM -0800, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Just FYI,
> 
> I've checked the attached in as, er, obvious.  It fixes a
> -Wuninitialized warning.

I agree with the "er, obvious".

Would there be anything wrong with:

> *************** value_fn_field (value_ptr *arg1p, struct
> *** 971,983 ****
>     struct minimal_symbol *msym;

adding = NULL to the line above?

>   
>     sym = lookup_symbol (physname, 0, VAR_NAMESPACE, 0, NULL);
> !   if (!sym)
>       {
>         msym = lookup_minimal_symbol (physname, NULL, NULL);
>       }
> - 
> -   if (!sym && !msym)
> -     return NULL;
>   
>     v = allocate_value (ftype);
>     if (sym)
> --- 972,988 ----
>     struct minimal_symbol *msym;
>   
>     sym = lookup_symbol (physname, 0, VAR_NAMESPACE, 0, NULL);
> !   if (sym != NULL)
>       {
> +       msym = NULL;
> +     }
> +   else
> +     {
> +       gdb_assert (sym == NULL);

This assert in particular bugs me.  Adding asserts that the compiler
can obviously eliminate, since sym isn't volatile...


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer