A common situation would be: if (condition) { flag = 1 msg = "Hello World"; } else flag = 0; [1] ... if (flag) printf ("I say, %s\n", msg); [2]Point [1] is where I "fail" to init 'msg', point [2] is where I use it. I know that the program is safe, and if the flow analysis can relate 'flag' and 'msg' then the warning would go away. Which one would we want listed in the proposed new warning, 1 or 2?
Definately 2. I wont say it is *impossible*, but I think it is asking way too much of the compiler to warn about 1. It implies a level of understanding of the flow of the program that is completely unrealistic. However, warning at 2 should be trivial. Where this level of detail in the warning is useful is if you have a particularly large function, with the variables declared at the top (not at the top of, say, and enclosing if() block). Its even worse when the code is full of pre-processor conditionals. By telling me that 2 (or all instances of type 2), it saves me looking at *every* usage of msg. It's just plain more useful, IMHO :) Kean
