On 27 May 2011 16:15, Dag Sverre Seljebotn <d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no> wrote: > On 05/27/2011 03:54 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote: >> >> [regarding the code for analysing uninitialised variables in the OpenMP >> branch] >> >> dagss, 27.05.2011 10:32: >>> >>> I suggest this: >>> >>> a) Vitja and Stefan notifies Mark of any issues that stops control flow >>> analysis from going into trunk (outright collisions etc.). Those have >>> prioritiy over fused types work etc (although I guess Mark don't have >>> much GSoC time the next month). >>> >>> b) Come July, when control flow analysis is presumably in master, Mark >>> takes a pass and removes any duplicated logic. >>> >>> Thoughts? >> >> I don't think there are any collisions, it's just that Vitja is >> currently removing the old visitor based attempts of doing variable >> initialisation analysis. Getting yet another one in while getting rid of >> the old ones is a rather unnecessary duplication of effort. > > Well, what's done is done. We can try to be smarter in the future. > > Dag Sverre > _______________________________________________ > cython-devel mailing list > cython-devel@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel >
Fortunately, the effort was rather small as it was a very simplistic way to detect uninitialized variables. I don't mind wasting 30 lines for a stopgap solution. And the good thing about it is that when the control flow branch gets merged the error tests are already written. _______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
