--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-25 11:15
---
The self-init is of course for the case where the -Wuninitialized warning is
bogus (which happens). It simply has no effect on whatever undefinedness
is in your code - it was added to be a "cheaper" way instead of
--- Comment #9 from jellegeerts at gmail dot com 2009-01-25 01:54 ---
Never mind my last message, misunderstood something.
Andrew, you say -Winit-self was added because initing a var by itself was a way
to disable the -Wuninitialized warning, but shouldn't -Wuninitialized itself
warn ab
--- Comment #8 from jellegeerts at gmail dot com 2009-01-25 01:50 ---
So actually initializing the variable by itself is a hack which results in
undefined behavior because folks wanted to disable the warning, and still
everybody thinks this is the way to go?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2009-01-24 22:33 ---
Subject: Re: if () block not true but a command in it is still in effect
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 24, 2009, at 2:24 PM, "jellegeerts at gmail dot com"
wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #6 from jellegeerts at gmail dot
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 24, 2009, at 2:24 PM, "jellegeerts at gmail dot com" > wrote:
--- Comment #6 from jellegeerts at gmail dot com 2009-01-24
22:24 ---
Seems reasonable, though I'd vote for -Wall to include -Winit-self.
I actually discovered this because of a bug I foun
--- Comment #6 from jellegeerts at gmail dot com 2009-01-24 22:24 ---
Seems reasonable, though I'd vote for -Wall to include -Winit-self.
I actually discovered this because of a bug I found in lxpanel. Now of course
it's the fault of those developers not to use -Winit-self, but seen the
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-24 19:37 ---
The program is only undefined at runtime, we may not reject the program at
compile-time.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38961
--- Comment #4 from jellegeerts at gmail dot com 2009-01-24 18:44 ---
That is certainly true, but shouldn't GCC (instead of optionally warning)
report an error?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38961
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-24 18:19 ---
You are invoking undefined behavior so anything can happen.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38961
--- Comment #2 from jellegeerts at gmail dot com 2009-01-24 18:15 ---
Yes, I know, but it is still a bug that the if () block is false and the
variable is still assigned the "lxsession-logout" value but the printf is not
executed. Shouldn't be possible I figured?
--
http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Comment #1 from falk at debian dot org 2009-01-24 17:48 ---
const char *logout_cmd = logout_cmd;
actually initializes the variable with its own (uninitialized) value.
You can get a warning about this with "-Winit-self".
--
falk at debian dot org changed:
What|Re
11 matches
Mail list logo
