Re: [Nmh-workers] too many uninitialized variables in nmh-1.1 RC4

[pmaydell]

Oliver Kiddle wrote:
>I would be inclined to think that clearing up compiler warnings is
>something we should leave until after the release.

Yes. (I still think we could do with an RC5 now; I think the current
CVS is good enough to release as 1.2, absent any last minute issues,
and it would be nice to have a 1.2 by Christmas :-))

>I've looked at a number of the instances flagged by the compiler and it
>is generally always the case that the compiler is wrong: the full
>program logic doesn't allow the variable to be used without
>initialisation.

That was my general conclusion. (If we're going to fix warnings the
ones about using the insecure tempfile creation function are probably
higher up the list).

>The question is how to deal with these because it'd be
>nice if we could prevent the compiler warnings. In some ways I think it
>is wrong to needlessly assign 0 to such variables because it implies to
>someone reading the code that the variable needs to be initialised to 0
>and that that value has a purpose.

Mm. On the other hand it does in some sense say 'I have looked at this
warning and decided it's spurious'.

-- PMM