From owner-freebsd-ia64@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 17 03:59:31 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ia64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3C616A4CE; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 03:59:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.des.no (flood.des.no [217.116.83.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE1A43D6D; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 03:59:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: by smtp.des.no (Pony Express, from userid 666) id 46B2F530E; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:59:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from dwp.des.no (des.no [80.203.228.37]) by smtp.des.no (Pony Express) with ESMTP id 9DB5E530A; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:59:13 +0100 (CET) Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 1B94433C6B; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:59:13 +0100 (CET) To: Ruslan Ermilov References: <20040317040254.386947303A@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <20040317113931.GF49920@ip.net.ua> From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:59:13 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20040317113931.GF49920@ip.net.ua> (Ruslan Ermilov's message of "Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:39:31 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on flood.des.no X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.63 cc: ia64@freebsd.org cc: FreeBSD Tinderbox cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [current tinderbox] failure on ia64/ia64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ia64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the IA-64 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:59:31 -0000 Ruslan Ermilov writes: > I cannot reproduce it either, but perhaps this is the same reason why > we still have -Wno-uninitialized in for normal WARNS > levels. No, we use -Wno-uninitialized because of cases where it is obvious to humans but not to gcc that a variable is initialized, such as: if (foo !=3D NULL) bar =3D baz(foo); /* some code that doesn't change foo */ if (foo !=3D NULL) printf("%d\n", bar); If you remove the code between the two ifs, gcc will coalesce them and realize nothing fishy is going on (unless you compile with -O0). DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no