On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Alan Modra<amo...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > > ..., but I think this warning should be in -Wc++-compat, not -Wall > > or even -Wextra. Why? I'd argue the warning is useless for C code, > > unless you care about C++ style.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:35:48AM -0700, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > I do not think it is useless for C99 codes because C99 allows > C++ style declarations/initialization in the middle of a block. But if the initialization is skipped and the variable is then used, won't we get an uninitialized-variable warning?
