Re: [PATCH 2/2] cat-file: Fix an gcc -Wuninitialized warning
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. In order to suppress the warning, we simply initialize the variable to NULL in it's declaration. 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. Hmm, I don't recall any agreement or conclusions being reached. I guess I missed that! What version of gcc are you using? If it is the most recent thing reasonably available on msysgit, then I am more sympathetic. But if it's just an antique version of gcc, I am less so. (see previous email for compiler versions). I suppose it depends on what you consider antique. [I recently downloaded the first C compiler from github. Yes, that is an antique compiler! ;-)] I would call some of the compilers I use a bit mature. :-P Hmm, so are you saying that this patch is not acceptable because I used a compiler that is no longer supported? ATB, Ramsay Jones -- 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/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 2/2] cat-file: Fix an gcc -Wuninitialized warning
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. Hmm, I don't recall any agreement or conclusions being reached. I guess I missed that! I think Jonathan said that and nobody disagreed, and I took it as a conclusion. Hmm, so are you saying that this patch is not acceptable because I used a compiler that is no longer supported? No, I just think we should come to a decision on how unreadable to make the code in order to suppress incorrect warnings on old compilers. I can see the point in either of the following arguments: 1. These compilers are old, and we do not need to cater to them in the code because people can just _not_ set -Werror=uninitialized (or its equivalent). It is still worth catering to bugs in modern compilers that most devs use, because being able to set -Werror is helpful. 2. The code is not made significantly less readable, especially if you put in a comment, so why not help these compilers. When we can make the code more readable _and_ help the compiler, I think it is a no-brainer. I am on the fence otherwise and don't care that much. I just think we should apply the rule consistently. -Peff -- 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/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 2/2] cat-file: Fix an gcc -Wuninitialized warning
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/majordomo-info.html
