From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] /srv/bzr/emacs/trunk r109864: Fix minor problems found by static checking. Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:44:34 +0300 Message-ID: <83r4qieszx.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83392zf7bu.fsf@gnu.org> <504506E8.5070506@cs.ucla.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1346705092 11026 80.91.229.3 (3 Sep 2012 20:44:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 20:44:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 03 22:44:53 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1T8dVq-00041u-7y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 22:44:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59669 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T8dVn-0004iH-Hi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 16:44:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:39600) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T8dVk-0004i1-VS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 16:44:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T8dVk-0005q8-3p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 16:44:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:44069) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T8dVj-0005pw-SA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 16:44:44 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M9S00000K64JB00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:44:29 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M9S000I6KA2AM80@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:44:27 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <504506E8.5070506@cs.ucla.edu> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 80.179.55.175 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:152971 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 12:37:12 -0700 > From: Paul Eggert > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > On 09/03/2012 08:35 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > What problems did static checking find in this (and other similar) > > fragment? > > It didn't find any problems in those two cases, as near as I can > tell; it was a false alarm by the new GCC flag -Wjump-misses-init. Thanks for the explanation. > Since those fragments annoy GCC false alarms aside, are there any reasons to prefer separate declaration and initialization?