On 08/31/2012 09:02 AM, Akim Demaille wrote: > I would very much like to have your opinion on this regard. > yacc.c has never initialized yylval, and this can actually > trigger warnings from GCC in some situations.
I have some qualms about putting in initializations just to pacify GCC. But I'm afraid I don't have enough context to be precise about my qualms. So I hope you don't mind if I ask a few questions.... Why aren't these warnings valid warnings? That is, why don't they indicate real bugs in the generated parser, where it does not initialize a value that it's supposed to? Does the proposed patch cause the parser to behave differently from before? Is there some way that we can characterize those differences, so that we can document the new behavior?
