Jeff King wrote:
> When we can make the code more readable _and_ help the compiler, I think
> it is a no-brainer.
Yep. :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordom
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 06:48:43PM +, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> > I'm OK with this, if it's the direction we want to go. But I thought the
> > discussion kind of ended as "we do not care about these warnings on
> > ancient versions of gcc; those people should use -Wno-error=uninitialized".
>
> Hm
Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 07:20:11PM +, Ramsay Jones wrote:
>
>> After commit cbfd5e1c ("drop some obsolete "x = x" compiler warning
>> hacks", 21-03-2013) removed a gcc specific hack, older versions of
>> gcc now issue an "'contents' might be used uninitialized" warning.
>> I
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 03:35:39PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> I note that we do not actually check that contents != NULL after calling
> read_sha1_file, either (nor that sha1_object_info does not return an
> error). I suspect cat-file could segfault under the right conditions.
Oh nevermind, we do.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 07:20:11PM +, Ramsay Jones wrote:
> After commit cbfd5e1c ("drop some obsolete "x = x" compiler warning
> hacks", 21-03-2013) removed a gcc specific hack, older versions of
> gcc now issue an "'contents' might be used uninitialized" warning.
> In order to suppress the w
5 matches
Mail list logo
