From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1646 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2009 22:33:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 1479 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2009 22:33:32 -0000 Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:33:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090124223332.1477.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c/38961] if () block not true but a command in it is still in effect In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "pinskia at gmail dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-01/txt/msg02700.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #7 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2009-01-24 22:33 ------- Subject: Re: if () block not true but a command in it is still in effect Sent from my iPhone On Jan 24, 2009, at 2:24 PM, "jellegeerts at gmail dot com" wrote: > > > ------- Comment #6 from jellegeerts at gmail dot com 2009-01-24 > 22:24 ------- > Seems reasonable, though I'd vote for -Wall to include -Winit-self. > > I actually discovered this because of a bug I found in lxpanel. Now > of course > it's the fault of those developers not to use -Winit-self, but seen > the other > options that -Wall enables, it seems reasonable to also enable - > Winit-self. Except -Winit-self is there because we decided a long time ago initing the variable by itself is a way to disable the uninitization warning. In fact before 3.4 there was no way to get this warning (oh I added this option:) ). Thanks, Andrew Pinsky > > > > -- > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38961 > -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38961