Hi, Ken Raeburn <raeb...@raeburn.org> writes:
> In this case, though, nothing after the label uses the value of the > variable for which the initialization is bypassed, so it seems okay. > Though, I'd think the declaration could be left in the same scope, and > just split into a declaration without initializer and a separate > assignment statement; that would probably suppress the warning without > triggering a used-before-set warning, and wouldn't require renaming > all the other "n" variables. (If it doesn't, I think it might be a > smaller change to rename the variable for which the declaration is > being moved, rather than all the others.) I would prefer it. Giuseppe: can you check whether it works for you? Thanks, Ludo’.
