Re: gcc4's uninitialized-variable warnings

[Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>]

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(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073