Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Compiling this as follows: >> >>> $ ~/gcc-trunk/bin/gcc -o test test.c -Wall >>> test.c: In function ‘main’: >>> test.c:23:4: warning: jump skips variable initialization >>> test.c:11:2: note: label ‘TEST_LABEL’ defined here >>> test.c:9:9: note: ‘foo’ declared here >> While this warning is completely accurate, it's also spurious, because >> the code that will execute after the jump to TEST_LABEL does not >> reference the local variable 'foo' in the target block at all. >> >> Now, I don't expect anyone to like this code... I've already fixed it up >> to not be so horrifically bad, but it's still perfectly valid and should >> not generate such a warning. Comments? > > This was the subject of a long discussion over on gcc@xxxxxxxxxxx, which > ended here: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-06/msg00704.html > > If you have something new to contribute, please do. Well... in my case, this warning caught one real bug (a variable whose initialization was skipped could have been referenced after the jump) and one non-bug (the only possible code path after the jump did not reference the variable in question at all). So, based on that, I'm fine with both the warning being added and it being part of -Wall, but it'd be great if somehow it could be extended to use the same information that -Wuninitialized does to determine whether the variable in question could, in fact, actually be referenced after the jump or not. -- Kevin P. Fleming Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA skype: kpfleming | jabber: kpfleming@xxxxxxxxxx Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org
