[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] inet_ntop: silence gcc warning

From: Jim Meyering
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] inet_ntop: silence gcc warning
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:04:00 +0100

Eric Blake wrote:
> On 01/11/2012 04:44 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> On 01/11/12 15:24, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> +  best.len = 0;
>> I have some qualms about adding unnecessary initializations
>> merely to silence GCC.  It's not just that it bloats the
>> runtime -- it's that it makes the code more confusing, because
>> later readers might mistakenly assume that the initializations
>> are necessary, which might cause them to waste time trying to figure
>> out why the initializations are there.
>> How about if we put that assignment inside an "#ifdef lint",
>> or wrap it in IF_LINT, or something like that?  That should
>> make it clearer and avoid the runtime bloat.
> But putting it inside #ifdef lint means you won't solve the compilation
> warning in the default case.  And in this case, it took me several

There are already numerous uses of IF_LINT and "#ifdef lint" in gnulib,
so users of gnulib who enable warning options should not be surprised
by warnings when they neglect to use -Dlint.

It is good for maintainability to mark such an unnecessary initialization.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]