* enquire build fail...
@ 1997-08-23 14:31 Peter Seebach
1997-08-23 17:08 ` explicitly initializing automatics with specific (garbage) values Jim Meyering
1997-08-23 17:08 ` egcs-ss-970821 -- bad comment Joel Sherrill
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Peter Seebach @ 1997-08-23 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: egcs
Here's '/var/tmp/ccXXX.s':
---
.file "enquire.c"
/ GNU C version egcs-2.90.01 970821 (gcc2-970802 experimental) (i386-pc-bsdi3.0)
compiled by GNU C version 1.42.
/ options passed: -g -O0
/ options enabled: -fpeephole -ffunction-cse -fkeep-static-consts
/ -freg-struct-return -fexceptions -fsjlj-exceptions -fcommon -fverbose-asm
/ -fgnu-linker -fargument-alias -m80387 -mhard-float -mno-soft-float
/ -mieee-fp -mfp-ret-in-387 -mschedule-prologue -mcpu=i386 -march=pentium
gcc2_compiled.:
___gnu_compiled_c:
---
unsurprisingly, this won't build, because of the '/ ...' stuff, which is
apparently not being ignored by the assembler, which I suppose was the
intent.
-s
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* egcs-ss-970821 -- bad comment
1997-08-23 14:31 enquire build fail Peter Seebach
1997-08-23 17:08 ` explicitly initializing automatics with specific (garbage) values Jim Meyering
@ 1997-08-23 17:08 ` Joel Sherrill
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joel Sherrill @ 1997-08-23 17:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: egcs
The message is:
../../src/gcc/config/m68k/m68kemb.h:50: warning: `/*' within comment
The problem is at line 46 where a comment is not terminated.
--joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* explicitly initializing automatics with specific (garbage) values
1997-08-23 14:31 enquire build fail Peter Seebach
@ 1997-08-23 17:08 ` Jim Meyering
1997-08-23 17:08 ` egcs-ss-970821 -- bad comment Joel Sherrill
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jim Meyering @ 1997-08-23 17:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: egcs
I vaguely recall someone suggesting adding an option to make gcc
initialize automatic variables to some (maybe-specified) bit pattern.
I recall making good use of an option like this back when I
worked with crusty old FORTRAN compilers. I think it would be
useful for C, too.
Does anyone have patches to do that?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: explicitly initializing automatics with specific (garbage) values
@ 1997-08-24 3:43 Jim Meyering
1997-08-24 3:43 ` Richard Henderson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jim Meyering @ 1997-08-24 3:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: egcs
Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> writes:
| Jim Meyering <meyering@eng.ascend.com> writes:
|
| > I vaguely recall someone suggesting adding an option to make gcc
| > initialize automatic variables to some (maybe-specified) bit pattern.
| >
| > I recall making good use of an option like this back when I
| > worked with crusty old FORTRAN compilers. I think it would be
| > useful for C, too.
| >
| > Does anyone have patches to do that?
|
| Isn't -Wuninitialized enough for this?
Sometimes it is.
Here's one case where it doesn't help, but where that sort of option would.
In the following, x is used uninitialized, but gcc doesn't detect it.
#include <stdlib.h>
static void
foo (int *x)
{
if (*x)
*x = 1;
}
int
main ()
{
int x;
foo (&x);
exit (x);
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: explicitly initializing automatics with specific (garbage) values
1997-08-24 3:43 Jim Meyering
@ 1997-08-24 3:43 ` Richard Henderson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Richard Henderson @ 1997-08-24 3:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: egcs
> > I vaguely recall someone suggesting adding an option to make gcc
> > initialize automatic variables to some (maybe-specified) bit pattern.
>
> Isn't -Wuninitialized enough for this?
-Wuninitialized isn't smart enough. And initializing to a bit
pattern both allows quick diagnosis in the debugger plus, in the
case of pointers, makes sure that the program will die at runtime.
r~
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: explicitly initializing automatics with specific (garbage) values
1997-08-24 3:43 egcs has some bad optimization bug H.J. Lu
@ 1997-08-24 3:43 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 1997-08-24 3:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: egcs
Jim Meyering <meyering@eng.ascend.com> writes:
> I vaguely recall someone suggesting adding an option to make gcc
> initialize automatic variables to some (maybe-specified) bit pattern.
>
> I recall making good use of an option like this back when I
> worked with crusty old FORTRAN compilers. I think it would be
> useful for C, too.
>
> Does anyone have patches to do that?
Isn't -Wuninitialized enough for this?
-Andi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1997-08-24 3:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1997-08-23 14:31 enquire build fail Peter Seebach
1997-08-23 17:08 ` explicitly initializing automatics with specific (garbage) values Jim Meyering
1997-08-23 17:08 ` egcs-ss-970821 -- bad comment Joel Sherrill
1997-08-24 3:43 egcs has some bad optimization bug H.J. Lu
1997-08-24 3:43 ` explicitly initializing automatics with specific (garbage) values Andi Kleen
1997-08-24 3:43 Jim Meyering
1997-08-24 3:43 ` Richard Henderson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).