Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 05:07:02 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: "Sean C. Farley" <scf@freebsd.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: strange issue reading /dev/null Message-ID: <20080807190701.GJ64458@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.1.10.0808071216150.2133@thor.farley.org> References: <489B0ACD.80008@kovesdan.org> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0808071058020.1056@thor.farley.org> <489B22BD.5050109@kovesdan.org> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0808071150460.2133@thor.farley.org> <20080807170235.GA39461@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0808071216150.2133@thor.farley.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On 2008-Aug-07 12:19:20 -0500, "Sean C. Farley" <scf@freebsd.org> wrote:
>Grr! Optimization should not be a requirement for checking for
>uninitialized variables. Yes, gcc adds "fun" to development.
This is documented:
`-Wuninitialized'
Warn if an automatic variable is used without first being
initialized or if a variable may be clobbered by a `setjmp' call.
These warnings are possible only in optimizing compilation,
because they require data flow information that is computed only
when optimizing. If you do not specify `-O', you will not get
these warnings. Instead, GCC will issue a warning about
`-Wuninitialized' requiring `-O'.
That explanation makes sense.
--
Peter Jeremy
Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement
an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour.
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAkibR9UACgkQ/opHv/APuIckDgCgjJzNW7N5aZA8oIfQuA6/bjGi
tzMAmgKpkJWOiA7R6l/MI9282trNZoFi
=xZhr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080807190701.GJ64458>