On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:13:47PM -0400, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote: > M.-A. Lemburg writes: > > ceval.c: In function `eval_code2': > > ceval.c:345: warning: `v' might be used uninitialized in this function > > ceval.c:346: warning: `w' might be used uninitialized in this function > > ceval.c:347: warning: `u' might be used uninitialized in this function > > ceval.c:348: warning: `t' might be used uninitialized in this function > These would be a real tedium to fix, and I'm not convinced the loss > of clarity is worth it. From looking at the code in the DUP_TOPX > code, I'm led to think that the compiler just isn't smart enough (it > should figure out that oparg won't change before the second case > statement, and figure it out more carefully. I'll bet *that* would > remove these warnings and still right in all cases. Well, I'm certain I compiled my code (which included DUP_TOPX) with -Wall sometime before, and I didn't get those warnings then. Probably depends on the version of gcc. As a colleague of mine would say, "insert clue" (into gcc, that is ;) -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4