From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9533 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2009 19:18:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 9515 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Apr 2009 19:18:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:17:58 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3FJHrkh031248; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:17:53 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n3FJHqxA015237; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:17:52 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-64.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.64]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3FJHp3h009441; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:17:51 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id B393850830B; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:17:50 -0600 (MDT) To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix compilation failure in parse_escape References: <83prfdlpqg.fsf@gnu.org> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:18:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <83prfdlpqg.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed\, 15 Apr 2009 21\:46\:15 +0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00341.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii writes: Eli> I think this happens because host_char_to_target sets its target_c Eli> argument only under certain conditions. Is the following patch the Eli> right fix? Eli> 2009-04-15 Eli Zaretskii Eli> * utils.c (parse_escape): Initialize target_char to pacify GCC. Any value (not just -2) is ok here because it will always be overwritten. Add a comment explaining that the initialization is to avoid a warning -- we do this in other places. Ok with that. thanks, Tom