Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Joe Buck<joe.b...@synopsys.com> wrote:
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?
Did we get any in the cases Ian reported?
No, because they were all like this:
goto fail;
...
int a = ...;
if (a)
{
fail:
// does not use a
return;
}
...
This is a bit ugly, but it's valid C code.
The only dubious one in my opinion was a missing bracket around switch,
which was also harmless but warrants a warning. This however could be
implemented as a separate warning going into -Wextra.
I don't think this warning can report anything that -Wuninitialized
cannot report, so it should go in -Wc++-compat only.
Paolo
