Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>
Cc: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>, <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: macrotab.c -Werror
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 12:55:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <npr8kezeqb.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205132025570.16238-100000@dberlin.org>


Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
> It's an obvious false positive (!best will be true the first time through, 
> meaning the only time we check best_depth, it's already been set at 
> least once).
> 
> Here, you can't just initialize best_depth to 0, you have to initialize it 
> to either INT_MAX, or inclusion_depth (result).
> 
> Sucks.

You're going too fast.  Here's the whole loop, for the sake of
discussion:

  /* It's not us.  Try all our children, and return the lowest.  */
  {
    struct macro_source_file *child;
    struct macro_source_file *best = 0;
    int best_depth;

    for (child = source->includes; child; child = child->next_included)
      {
        struct macro_source_file *result
          = macro_lookup_inclusion (child, name);

        if (result)
          {
            int result_depth = inclusion_depth (result);

            if (! best || result_depth < best_depth)
              {
                best = result;
                best_depth = result_depth;
              }
          }
      }

The only reference to `best_depth''s value is in the right operand of
`||'.  That operand will never be evaluated unless `best' is non-zero.
But `best' is initially zero, and is only assigned along with
`best_depth'.  So `best_depth''s initial value is never used.  This
means:
- the original code is correct (although the compiler doesn't figure
  that out), and
- you can initialize it to anything you want, since its initial value
  is never used.

I don't actually know how many unnecessary initializations there are
in GDB to silence the compiler, but it's my impression that the
compiler's false positive rate for `var might be used uninitialized'
warnings is low enough that it's still a useful sanity check.  So I'm
happy to add a few unnecessary initializations.

What sucks (a bit) is that every one of those unnecessary
initializations does end up generating code --- if the compiler could
tell it was unnecessary, it wouldn't have printed the warning!


  reply	other threads:[~2002-05-14 19:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-05-13 16:35 Andrew Cagney
2002-05-13 17:28 ` Daniel Berlin
2002-05-14 12:55   ` Jim Blandy [this message]
2002-05-14 13:27     ` Andrew Cagney
2002-05-14 13:50     ` Daniel Berlin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=npr8kezeqb.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com \
    --to=jimb@redhat.com \
    --cc=ac131313@cygnus.com \
    --cc=dberlin@dberlin.org \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox