From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26993 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2007 21:32:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 26980 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2007 21:32:03 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:31:56 +0000 Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l0GLViAO025121; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:31:44 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l0GLVhER027793; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:31:44 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:32:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200701162131.l0GLVhER027793@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, hongjiu.lu@intel.com In-reply-to: <20070116065937.GA15794@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on 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> <20070116065937.GA15794@nevyn.them.org> 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/msg00367.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:59:38 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > 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