[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 1/2] inet_ntop: silence gcc warning
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 1/2] inet_ntop: silence gcc warning |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:04:00 +0100 |
Eric Blake wrote:
> On 01/11/2012 04:44 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> On 01/11/12 15:24, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> + best.len = 0;
>>
>> I have some qualms about adding unnecessary initializations
>> merely to silence GCC. It's not just that it bloats the
>> runtime -- it's that it makes the code more confusing, because
>> later readers might mistakenly assume that the initializations
>> are necessary, which might cause them to waste time trying to figure
>> out why the initializations are there.
>>
>> How about if we put that assignment inside an "#ifdef lint",
>> or wrap it in IF_LINT, or something like that? That should
>> make it clearer and avoid the runtime bloat.
>
> But putting it inside #ifdef lint means you won't solve the compilation
> warning in the default case. And in this case, it took me several
There are already numerous uses of IF_LINT and "#ifdef lint" in gnulib,
so users of gnulib who enable warning options should not be surprised
by warnings when they neglect to use -Dlint.
It is good for maintainability to mark such an unnecessary initialization.
- FYI misc compile warnings on Mingw32, Daniel P. Berrange, 2012/01/11
- [PATCH 0/2] silence some mingw warnings, Eric Blake, 2012/01/11
- [PATCH 1/2] inet_ntop: silence gcc warning, Eric Blake, 2012/01/11
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] inet_ntop: silence gcc warning, Paul Eggert, 2012/01/11
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] inet_ntop: silence gcc warning, Eric Blake, 2012/01/11
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] inet_ntop: silence gcc warning, Eric Blake, 2012/01/11
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] inet_ntop: silence gcc warning, Paul Eggert, 2012/01/11
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] inet_ntop: silence gcc warning,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] inet_ntop: silence gcc warning, Eric Blake, 2012/01/12