On 12/30/2017 03:58 AM, Louis Krupp wrote:
> Thank you for making me stop and think about this. I was basically full of
> crap; like the test case in 78394, the tree compiles just fine at -O0. I
> don't know where I got the idea that it didn't.
>
> Initializing dozens of variables just to make t
On 12/30/17, Louis Krupp wrote:
> Thank you for making me stop and think about this. I was basically full of
> crap; like the test case in 78394, the tree compiles just fine at -O0. I
> don't know where I got the idea that it didn't.
>
> Initializing dozens of variables just to make the tree compi
Thank you for making me stop and think about this. I was basically full of
crap; like the test case in 78394, the tree compiles just fine at -O0. I don't
know where I got the idea that it didn't.
Initializing dozens of variables just to make the tree compile at -Og might be
nice in some abstrac
On 12/29/17, Louis Krupp wrote:
> I tried to build the trunk using:
>
> BOOT_CFLAGS='-g -Og' CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET='-g -Og' CFLAGS_FOR_BUILD='-g -Og'
>
> I got a number of compilation warnings -- promoted to errors -- about
> possibly uninitialized variables.
>
> I have what I believe is a decent patc
I tried to build the trunk using:
BOOT_CFLAGS='-g -Og' CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET='-g -Og' CFLAGS_FOR_BUILD='-g -Og'
I got a number of compilation warnings -- promoted to errors -- about possibly
uninitialized variables.
I have what I believe is a decent patch that initializes those variables and
which
