Tom Lane wrote:
> I asked some gcc experts at Red Hat about the new variable-may-be-used-
> uninitialized warnings that gcc 4.x reports. These occur in cases
> like
>
> int i, j;
> ...
> foo(&i, &j);
> // use i and j
>
> I had thought that gcc was being stricter about the possibility that the
> called function might not set its output parameters, but the true story
> is entirely different. There's been no change in the strictness of the
> check for external function calls. What is happening is that if foo()
> is static and gcc chooses to inline it into the calling function, you
> will now see a warning if the transformed code fails the check. In
> essence this means that there is a code path through foo() that doesn't
> set the output parameter.
>
> Armed with that knowledge, we can fix these warnings by ensuring the
> callee sets the output parameters in all code paths; which is often
> cleaner than having the caller initialize the variables before call,
> as I was afraid we'd have to do.
>
> I'll work on cleaning these up.
Wow, that is a nifty complier check.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
