This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: (Really, summarizing remaining warnings)
- To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Subject: Re: (Really, summarizing remaining warnings)
- From: Robert Lipe <robertlipe at usa dot net>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:50:55 -0600
- Cc: law at cygnus dot com, egcs-patches at cygnus dot com
- References: <199903110322.WAA12600@caip.rutgers.edu>
Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> 2a. 50-70 missing initializer
> 2b. 50-70 (near initialization for `???')
> (For some reason this became a two line warning recently so
> the warn_summary script counts it twice.) Anyway, these all (or 98%)
> appear in toplev.c and are due to the definitions of the
> TARGET_SWITCHES and TARGET_OPTIONS macros. One simply needs to add
I did this for i386 a few months ago but intentionally didn't add
strings for flags that weren't in *.texi to call attention to the
> 1. ~100 `???' might be used uninitialized in this function
> I would welcome volunteers for 1 and 3.
Do we think these are now all "real" and not just GCC being unable
to see that it's untrue?