From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 114344 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2018 16:46:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 114223 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jan 2018 16:46:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=(unknown), Hx-languages-length:1117 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 16:46:30 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10925C07012C; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 16:46:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unused-10-15-17-193.yyz.redhat.com [10.15.17.193]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D81665D964; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 16:46:27 +0000 (UTC) From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 8.1 release branch created! References: <83h8rlyakm.fsf@gnu.org> <87po69zkxe.fsf@redhat.com> <87po69y20p.fsf@redhat.com> <83wp0hw400.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 16:46:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <83wp0hw400.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 17 Jan 2018 05:36:31 +0200") Message-ID: <87k1wgfn6l.fsf@redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-01/txt/msg00344.txt.bz2 On Tuesday, January 16 2018, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Sergio Durigan Junior >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:36:22 -0500 >> >> I'm not sure why this one is happening. I think it has something to do >> with the fact that we're declaring "maybe_restore_inferior" as >> gdb::optional, because scoped_restore_current_inferior's constructor >> already takes care of initializing "m_saved_inf" (same goes for >> scoped_restore_current_program_space). >> >> If that is the case, then maybe we can mark the "uninitialized variable" >> warning for "m_saved_inf" and "m_saved_pspace". > > Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what does your suggestion here mean > in practice. Can you elaborate, or show a proposed patch? Eli, with Pedro's reply, mentioning: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-05/msg00130.html I think there's not much we can do about the warning. Thanks, -- Sergio GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36 Please send encrypted e-mail if possible http://sergiodj.net/