Re: GDB 6.5.90 available for testing (GDB 6.6 pre-release)

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

>
>  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  <jimb@codesourcery.com>
>
>        * 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?

>
>  diff -rN -u old-lval/gdb/cp-valprint.c new-lval/gdb/cp-valprint.c
>  --- gdb/cp-valprint.c	2006-12-05 11:11:42.000000000 -0800
>  +++ gdb/cp-valprint.c	2006-12-05 11:11:43.000000000 -0800
>  @@ -269,6 +269,9 @@
>     char *last_dont_print = obstack_next_free
>  (&dont_print_statmem_obstack);
>     int fields_seen = 0;
>
>  +  /* This isn't necessary, but it avoids compiler warnings.  */
>  +  obstack_init (&tmp_obstack);
>  +
>     CHECK_TYPEDEF (type);
>
>     fprintf_filtered (stream, "{");
>  @@ -531,6 +534,9 @@
>     int thisoffset;
>     struct type *thistype;
>
>  +  /* This isn't necessary, but it avoids compiler warnings.  */
>  +  obstack_init (&tmp_obstack);
>  +
>     if (dont_print_vb == 0)
>       {
>         /* If we're at top level, carve out a completely fresh
>  diff -rN -u old-lval/gdb/p-valprint.c new-lval/gdb/p-valprint.c
>  --- gdb/p-valprint.c	2006-12-05 11:11:42.000000000 -0800
>  +++ gdb/p-valprint.c	2006-12-05 11:11:44.000000000 -0800
>  @@ -756,6 +756,9 @@
>     struct obstack tmp_obstack;
>     char *last_dont_print = obstack_next_free
>  (&dont_print_statmem_obstack);
>
>  +  /* This isn't necessary, but it avoids compiler warnings.  */
>  +  obstack_init (&tmp_obstack);
>  +
>     CHECK_TYPEDEF (type);
>
>     fprintf_filtered (stream, "{");
>  @@ -927,6 +930,9 @@
>     = (struct type **) obstack_next_free (&dont_print_vb_obstack);
>     int i, n_baseclasses = TYPE_N_BASECLASSES (type);
>
>  +  /* This isn't necessary, but it avoids compiler warnings.  */
>  +  obstack_init (&tmp_obstack);
>  +
>     if (dont_print_vb == 0)
>       {
>         /* If we're at top level, carve out a completely fresh
>
>