Re: [Patch] Fix PR 5582 and 10538, missed uninitialized variable warning

[Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>]

On Sunday, Aug 17, 2003, at 09:33 US/Eastern, Jason Merrill wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 01:00:47 -0400, Andrew Pinski 
> <pinskia@physics.uc.edu> wrote:
>
> > This is a follow up with my pervious patch which did not compile at 
> > all in
> > any non C language.
>
> > This fixes PR 5582 only when pedantic is on because it as a GCC 
> > extension
> > to do int i = i; to turn off the uninitialized warnings for that
> > variable.
>
> I don't think it makes sense for this to be conditional on -pedantic;
> warnings have nothing to do with standards conformance.  As the PR
> suggests, this should be controlled by a -Wno- flag.

I had naming things what do you suggest for the name of the flag?

> > There is one case where I warn when we should not: int *x = &(x+2);.
>
> That code is ill-formed; x+2 isn't an lvalue, so you can't take its 
> address.

I will remove that FIXME then.


Thanks,
Andrew Pinski