Hi Lubomir, It's not about a dangerous lack of initialization - it's more about code consistence. So, the question should be why not initialize all members as we should do?
In addition, most of these are not following the new coding style (which we discussed in another thread), so if you want to apply them, I could send new patches fixing it (and join all changes in a single patch if you like)... 2015-03-23 12:31 GMT-03:00 Lubomir I. Ivanov <[email protected]>: > On 23 March 2015 at 06:43, Marcos Cardinot <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The attached patches initialize some members in several classes of the >> qt-ui package... >> >> > hello, > > do these patches have the idea to solve compiler warnings (what GCC > version and -W level) or potentially dangerous lack of initialization > (according to you)? > if no to both, perhaps we should leave these changes out. > > for instance about 008, the setup() is called in the constructor which > will surely *not* leave the variable uninitialized. > > lubomir > -- > >
_______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
