This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]

Re: (Really, summarizing remaining warnings)


 > From: Robert Lipe <robertlipe@usa.net>
 > 
 > 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
 > missing doc.


	How about fixing the texi file then? :-)




 > > 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?
 > RJL


	There will always be some false positives, because gcc is
documented as unable to detect some cases.  Some of the completely bogus
ones have been fixed.  I don't know if the false positives we get today
are *only* the documented cases, or we still see some undocumented false
positives. 

		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu		Qwest Internet Solutions


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