Re: [Chicken-users] A question on C_reclaim

[John Cowan]

Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:

> A) gcc will still warn about about
>   'weakn' may be used uninitialized in this function

And rightly so.  weakn is intialized at line 2888, which is within
the scope of the "if(C_enable_gcweak) {" beginning at line 2885 and
ending at line 2891.  The problematic test, however, is at line 2961.
Consequently, if C_enable_gcweak is false, weakn will contain garbage.
That shouldn't affect what happens at 2691, since weakn should not be
examined if C_enable_gcweak is false, which is the gcc bug.  Nevertheless,
the warning should be eliminated by initializing weakn to 0 in line
2655 where it is declared.  Variables which are sometimes initialized
and sometimes not are usually bad coding style.

-- 
A: "Spiro conjectures Ex-Lax."                  John Cowan
Q: "What does Pat Nixon frost her cakes with?"  address@hidden
  --"Jeopardy" for generative semanticists      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan