Re: gcc-current: badly worded warning?

t statement is true, the second false. > > > You're right. Can you please file a PR for this? > > Thanks, > Ben > > -- Eyal Lebedinsky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://samba.org/eyal/> attach .zip as .dat

gcc-current: badly worded warning?

ings for this statement: warning: logical '||' with non-zero constant will always evaluate as true warning: logical '&&' with non-zero constant will have no effect -- Eyal Lebedinsky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://samba.org/eyal/> attach .zip as .dat

Re: mudflap - does anyone else get many exceptions?

Eyal Lebedinsky wrote: > This is probably an issue only with multithreaded programs. > > For a long time now I found a need to apply a private patch to mf-runtime.c > so that it does not report access to envp[] as a violation. I now built > gcc-4.2.0 and gcc-current and found th

mudflap - does anyone else get many exceptions?

-20070518.patch.bz2 -- Eyal Lebedinsky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://samba.org/eyal/> attach .zip as .dat

Re: Uninitialized use warning message

the code is > full of pre-processor conditionals. By telling me that 2 > (or all instances of type 2), it saves me looking at *every* > usage of msg. It's just plain more useful, IMHO :) > > Kean Yes, [2] tells you where the risk lies, yet in order to fix it [1] will be very use

Re: Uninitialized use warning message

#x27;, point [2] is where I use it. I know that the program is safe, and if the flow analysis can relate 'flag' and 'msg' then the warning would go away. Which one would we want listed in the proposed new warning, 1 or 2? Naturally, there can be multiple 1s and 2s for the same variable. -- Eyal Lebedinsky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://samba.org/eyal/> attach .zip as .dat

mudflap - missed violation

expected violations) and then in a thread (the static is reported, the auto is not). -- Eyal Lebedinsky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://samba.org/eyal/> zz41.sh Description: application/shellscript

Re: mudflap: main objects are inited too late for a shared library constructor [patch]

Eyal Lebedinsky wrote: > I have a system that uses some shared libraries. I find that > when a library constructor runs the __wrap_main() did not > yet execute and as a results I get many violations on the > objects that it registers. The attached patch seems to work for me, is it

mudflap: compiler flags changed?

how a simple violation is missed when -fmudflapth is used (the program does not use threads). -- Eyal Lebedinsky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://samba.org/eyal/> zz39.sh Description: application/shellscript

mudflap: main objects are inited too late for a shared library constructor

s 'environ' which I interrogate at that time. What is the correct way of handling this? -- Eyal Lebedinsky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://samba.org/eyal/> zz40.sh Description: application/shellscript

Re: mudflap abort

Now tracked as http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20339 -- Eyal Lebedinsky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://samba.org/eyal/> attach .zip as .dat

mudflap abort

/home/eyal/zz/zz37.c(79) created mf: erroneous reentrancy detected in `__mf_register' -- Eyal Lebedinsky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://samba.org/eyal/> attach .zip as .dat zz37.sh Description: Bourne shell script