On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 21:10 -0500, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > > I've put a possible patch in the metabug (24639). As I mention in > > the comments, I'm not comfortable self-approving it given my lack of > > knowledge about the option processing code and the debate over what > > we want the default -Wuninitialized behavior to be. > > jeff > > If it helps, I withdraw my objection. It helps a little, but I'm still not comfortable with the option processing bits. They seem to work, but that could just as easily been by accident rather than design. Let's just say I'm not too familiar with all the changes in that area from the last year or so.
> > Out of curiosity, I bootstrapped your patch with -Wuninitialized=2 in > STRICT2_WARN and got 63 hits within GCC on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. > > That's not too terrible to fix, if we decide to add that flag to the > bootstrap sequence. I've got no strong opinions on whether or not to add these new warnings to the GCC bootstrap process. I'll defer on these issues completely :-) jeff
