On 07/02/2015 18:00, James McCoy wrote:
On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 03:42:50PM +0000, Mike Williams wrote:
I have looked through the potentially uninitialised variables reported for
my usual Windows builds and they all look benign. It seems the compiler is
just spotting branches in the code where the variable is not assigned to but
is used later. A simplistic example is:
int foo, bar;
if (a)
foo = bar;
else
bar = 1;
if (a)
bar += 2*foo;
This generates a warning since it doesn't spot that foo is initialised and
referenced under the same condition.
Well, bar when a is true, then bar is uninitialized and when a is false,
foo is uninitialized. Maybe that wasn't the example you meant.
Email in haste, bugs reported at leisure ;-) Yep, I meant to initialise
bar first. I'll get my coat.
Mike
--
Just when you thought you were winning the rat race, along comes a
faster rat.
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
