From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12194 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2006 21:41:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 12180 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Dec 2006 21:41:57 -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, 05 Dec 2006 21:41:48 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Gri2l-0007kO-FZ; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:41:39 -0500 Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:41:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: Jim Blandy , Markus Deuling , Joel Brobecker , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB 6.5.90 available for testing (GDB 6.6 pre-release) Message-ID: <20061205214139.GA29732@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , Jim Blandy , Markus Deuling , Joel Brobecker , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20061202192351.GY3304@adacore.com> <4573EBCD.90505@de.ibm.com> <20061204182108.GA11343@adacore.com> <4575197F.7020602@de.ibm.com> <24560.163.1.150.229.1165354580.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <24560.163.1.150.229.1165354580.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-12/txt/msg00048.txt.bz2 On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 10:36:20PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > Here's the patch I've been using for this. It'd be better to rework > > the way those functions use those obstacks, but... > > > > 2006-12-05 Jim Blandy > > > > * cp-valprint.c (cp_print_value_fields, cp_print_value): > > Initialize tmp_obstack, to avoid warnings. > > * p-valprint.c (pascal_object_print_value_fields) > > (pascal_object_print_value): Same. > > This is silly, at least if they are really unecessary. It's a bug in GCC > and should be fixed. I mean, GCC should get better at detecting this sort > of things; not give more false positives. > > Markus, can you file a GCC bug report for this? I'm pretty sure the GCC bug was fixed in later versions of 4.1.x already. At least, my compiler no longer warns about it. But I have no idea how reliable that is - I can't see any vaguely efficient way to compute this. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery