On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 2:39 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 1:59 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Maybe there's some strange cross-distro difference here, but > >> what I'm wondering is if there's a difference in CFLAGS. > >> My build used > >> > >> CFLAGS = -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith > >> -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Werror=vla -Wendif-labels > >> -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 -Wcast-function-type > >> -Wshadow=compatible-local -Wformat-security > >> -Wmissing-variable-declarations -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv > >> -fexcess-precision=standard -Wno-format-truncation > >> -Wno-stringop-truncation -g -O2 > > > Yeah, interestingly I didn't see the warning with CFLAGS your build > > used but got it if I use -O0 instead of -O2. > > I checked the buildfarm, and (so far) adder and flaviventris have > shown this warning, but nothing else has. adder is using gcc 14.2.0 > with -O0, while flaviventris is using gcc 16.0.0 with -O0.
Indeed. Thank you for checking. > Also > I tried -O0 with gcc 15.1.1 on my Fedora 42 box, and now it shows the > warning. So maybe the difference is just -O0? But I think there are > other buildfarm animals using that, so I'm not certain we've explained > the difference fully. > > Anyway, based on that I think there's enough reason to go ahead > with your patch. Agreed. I've attached the patch. I'll push it, barring comments. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
0001-Suppress-maybe-uninitialized-warning.patch
Description: Binary data
