This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: missed uninitialised variable warning

From: Laurent GUERBY <guerby at acm dot org>
To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>,Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>,Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>,Andrew Morton <akpm at osdl dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 20:36:40 +0200
Subject: Re: missed uninitialised variable warning
References: <87071F48-C68E-11D7-9AF5-000393A6D2F2@physics.uc.edu> <1060019828.3126.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <orznipwb69.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Reply-to: guerby at acm dot org

On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 20:05, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Aug  4, 2003, Laurent GUERBY <guerby@acm.org> wrote:
> 
> > For Ada at least the construct is illegal
> 
> In C and C++ it's legal, and there are actual cases in which you do
> want to reference the variable (as an lvalue) before its declaration
> is complete.

I was answering a specific point about the effect of a patch
on languages other than C and C++, since not many
people know Ada I thought it was useful to mention
that such a construct is unlikely to get past
the front-end in Ada so no back-end or shared front-end issue there.

No need to turn the discussion in a language feature flame war :).

Laurent

References:
- Re: missed uninitialised variable warning
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: missed uninitialised variable warning
  - From: Laurent GUERBY
- Re: missed uninitialised variable warning
  - From: Alexandre Oliva

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]