To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: False alarm of variable used uninitialized
Message-ID:	<19970305.204716.2247.2.chambersb@juno.com>
References:	<m0w2F6z-000S1oC AT natacha DOT inti DOT edu DOT ar>
From:	chambersb AT juno DOT com (Benjamin D Chambers)
Date:	Wed, 05 Mar 1997 23:43:22 EST

On Wed, 5 Mar 1997 14:57:08 +0000 "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)"
<salvador AT natacha DOT inti DOT edu DOT ar> writes:
>  I saw other situations where a human can analyze that the variable 
>will be 
>initialized but GCC claims that not. Seems that this part of GCC is a 
>little 
>weak. When I come to these situations I simply force an initialization 
>to avoid 
>the warning, I think that 3 o 4 extra assigments in 500Kb of code 
>aren't so bad 
>but of course could be better if GCC worked better. You can post your 
>wish to 
>the GNU/FSF people.
OTOH, I've found that every instance of this (at least in my code) code
be rewritten in a syntactically (great word, eh?) equivalent form that
didn't cause the warning with no loss of performance (I like to get rid
of those warnings, cause they bug the **** out of me when compiling). 
This might not always be the case - it just was with my code (which is, I
admit, pretty thin proof :)

...Chambers

- Raw text -