Re: PATCH: Initialize tmp_obstack

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:59:38 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.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?

I've looked at the code, I couldn't see an easy way.  I couldn't find
an easy way because the code is actually very hard to understand.  I
really think the code should be rewritten such that it is easier to
understand.

Mark