"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On 10 Jan 2007 18:48:58 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > | | > | It seems to me that the only reason for Winit-self to exists is that | > | people try to silence the -Wuninitialized warnings using the init-self | > | hack and then other people have to work-around that hack. | > | > I don't believe that explanation. | > | | Anybody is free to believe whatever they wish.
It was a polite way of phrasing something. I did not anticipate that would have been too subtile. | As for facts to make up your mind, here there are a few: | | * Some excerpts from the thread that originated the official blessing | on the init-self hack and the subsequent warning to work-around it: | | (Joe Buck discovers the init-self hack and proposes to disable it and | require an option to enable it. That wasn't the option implemented.) | | "Someone evidently discovered that if one writes "int a = a" it suppresses | uninitialized variable warnings! This seems to be an accidental feature | of gcc" I'm well aware of the history of "-Winit-self". The issue is more subtile that you would like to make it appear. You would have to study more carefully the threads relating to this issue. If you dig the archive, you should be able to find example of circular_buffer buf = buf; [ or void* p = &p; ] -- Gaby
