From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] master 6cd5678: Clarify compiler-pacifier in frame.c Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 21:49:23 +0200 Message-ID: <877e6z4sho.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <835zmnjdjm.fsf@gnu.org> <227db16b-17d1-b44b-97b3-e80211415eef@cs.ucla.edu> <831rx9iupo.fsf@gnu.org> <32f9db09-0c04-df03-4bb7-76fe2aa9a88f@cs.ucla.edu> <83tva4fjkz.fsf@gnu.org> <87cb5a0c-bdd8-726c-80ed-92e9f3518a58@cs.ucla.edu> <83o90cfecf.fsf@gnu.org> <87lfvg3qbi.fsf@telefonica.net> <83imqjgb1g.fsf@gnu.org> <87ftln4wm0.fsf@telefonica.net> <83a7bvg4a2.fsf@gnu.org> <87blwb4u2i.fsf@telefonica.net> <835zmjg1re.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="67501"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 26 21:50:53 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1i2L0u-000HNO-Tj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 21:50:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57250 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i2L0t-0008MX-Ix for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:50:51 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44971) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i2Kzm-0008Lv-Q2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:49:43 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i2Kzl-0004yp-PW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:49:42 -0400 Original-Received: from 195-159-176-226.customer.powertech.no ([195.159.176.226]:42084 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i2Kzl-0004yH-JS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:49:41 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1i2KzY-000FrE-5R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 21:49:28 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Cancel-Lock: sha1:mWMUdZcJUdgnn6fW9hPnPjdSgBM= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:239590 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Let's suppose that the warning was correct and the hacker was wrong when >> judged it bogus. > > The warning was correct, and I didn't decide it was bogus. I added > the initialization because the warning was NOT bogus. Please see the > code and the comment. Fair enough. I was not discussing the specific case, but the general practice.