From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17019 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2007 06:59:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 17011 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2007 06:59:49 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 06:59:41 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H6iIE-00047H-B9; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:59:38 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 06:59:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, "H.J. Lu" Subject: Re: PATCH: Initialize tmp_obstack Message-ID: <20070116065937.GA15794@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, "H.J. Lu" 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061225040032.GA29719@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00358.txt.bz2 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