(Really, summarizing remaining warnings)
Robert Lipe
robertlipe@usa.net
Thu Mar 11 09:51:00 GMT 1999
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.
> 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
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list