From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Suspicious warning in W64 build Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:53:26 -0700 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <84478f56-8fb2-87c3-c74c-c3ee92b6403a@cs.ucla.edu> References: <1017454172.910810.1504618695244@mail.libero.it> <83tw0cwcle.fsf@gnu.org> <83h8wcw3td.fsf@gnu.org> <83377vx3d0.fsf@gnu.org> <83ingnq01t.fsf@gnu.org> <83fubrpxsv.fsf@gnu.org> <83r2v9masw.fsf@gnu.org> <86a81xrndl.fsf@gmail.com> <83a81wmijy.fsf@gnu.org> <83vakkklto.fsf@gnu.org> <83poarlrcj.fsf@gnu.org> <83h8w3krx1.fsf@gnu.org> <83bmm9jt23.fsf@gnu.org> <0feb1250-beb8-5a21-0582-c879f922bb1c@cs.ucla.edu> <83zi9ti6x5.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1505674453 31008 195.159.176.226 (17 Sep 2017 18:54:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 18:54:13 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 Cc: fabrice.popineau@centralesupelec.fr, andrewjmoreton@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 17 20:54:07 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dtehi-0007qf-Mr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 20:54:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33331 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtehp-00057A-Sn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 14:54:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60609) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtehD-00056p-14 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 14:53:35 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dtehC-0005Iz-9d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 14:53:35 -0400 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:41492) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dteh6-0005Fp-R0; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 14:53:28 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F590160CFE; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id d9koVDoGplXZ; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:53:26 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89A10160D1D; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:53:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id MbAjkg1GcPpp; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:53:26 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (unknown [47.154.18.85]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62FF3160A5A; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:53:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83zi9ti6x5.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Language: en-US X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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:218420 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii wrote: > these are minor stylistic differences Although they are minor, they are semantic differences not stylistic. UNINIT is better on technical grounds; among other things, it causes GCC to generate more-efficient code in production builds. As the main objection to UNINIT appears to be stylistic, perhaps we can ameliorate that somehow. We could change its name to ATTRIBUTE_UNINIT, say, so that declarations look like this: Lisp_Object dest ATTRIBUTE_UNINIT; Would that be better?