This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: A patch to constify gcc.c (Really, summarizing remaining warnings)
- To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Subject: Re: A patch to constify gcc.c (Really, summarizing remaining warnings)
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at rabi dot columbia dot edu>
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 15:01:19 -0500
- cc: egcs-patches at cygnus dot com
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999 14:54:53 -0500 (EST), "Kaveh R. Ghazi" wrote:
> > From: Jeffrey A Law <law@hurl.cygnus.com>
> > >
> > > 1. ~100 `???' might be used uninitialized in this function
> > >
> > > These are annoying and tedious to trace but can always be
> > > silenced via initialization at the declaration. Rth's flow rewrite
> > > seems to have killed some of the bogus ones appearing on the alpha.
> >
> > Let's go after these. They're a pain to analyze, but they're the kinds of
> > warnings that may actually be a bug.
>
> I think Zack did a good job starting this off, got some good
>feedback and he mentioned he has some patches on the way. I'm eagerly
>awaiting the results. :-)
Don't hold your breath - my computer has to get fixed first. Next
week I hope.
> > > 6. 25-35 implicit declaration of function `putc_unlocked'
> > >
> > > These have been discussed, but I don't believe I ever heard a
> > > satisfactory solution posted. See
> > > http://www.cygnus.com/ml/egcs/1999-Jan/0361.html
> >
> > I think we're still trying to resolve this one.
>
> Yup, Zack was doing this one also. What was the consensus?
>Anything I can help with?
I sent a patch. You raised some concerns which I responded to. I
haven't heard anything since.
http://egcs.cygnus.com/ml/egcs-patches/1999-03/msg00255.html
The message had a non-obvious title, which may be why no one else
commented.
zw