On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 11:54:10AM -0500, Sean C. Farley wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Gabor Kovesdan wrote:
Sean C. Farley ha scritto:
You are testing c which has not been set. It works OK if you set c
then do the test:
+ c = fgetc(f);
if (c != EOF)
- printf("%c\n", fgetc(f));
+ printf("%c\n", c);
Yes, you are right, this is what I meant, I'm just a bit
disorganised....
Thanks!
You are welcome.
Actually, what I found odd was that the base gcc did not warn about
using an uninitialized variable using -Wall.
Probably because you didn't use -O. -Wall includes -Wuninitialized,
but -Wuninitialized only applies if you use optimisation. gcc won't
bail if you use -Wall without -O, for obvious reasons. Case in point:
You are correct; I did not use -O.
$ gcc -Wall -o x x.c
x.c: In function 'main':
x.c:14: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
$ gcc -Wuninitialized -o x x.c
cc1: warning: -Wuninitialized is not supported without -O
Heh.
$ gcc -Wall -O -o x x.c
x.c: In function 'main':
x.c:14: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
x.c:12: warning: 'c' is used uninitialized in this function
gcc -- finding new ways every day to drive programmers crazy. :-)
Grr! Optimization should not be a requirement for checking for
uninitialized variables. Yes, gcc adds "fun" to development.
Sean
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
