purify 4.1 and egcs still appear to be incompatible.

[Brad M. Garcia]

On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, Ian Haggard wrote:

> Actually, the problem is that gcc's default copy constructors for "empty" types
> somehow are making purify think that the one byte being copied is actually
> being used.

So... why does gcc copy a random byte unnecessarily?  I would think that
we could at least change it to copy something that _has_ been initialized.
Or make it do something other than a copy.  I'm assuming that this "null"
instruction has been added to assist debugging in some way.

Can anyone point me to the spot in the egcs source where this code is
generated?

Brad Garcia
   ___/  __ /  __ /  ___/ "Being the Linux of digital media
  __/   /  /  / _/  __/    would be a very good life."
_/    ____/ _/ _| ____/      - Jean-Louis Gassee, CEO of Be, Inc.