3 ms·
As everyone who has written a C program of sufficient complexity knows, these warnings are not always correct. Google for "spurious warnings uninitialized", e.
by sfk 17y ago
As everyone who has written a C program of sufficient complexity knows, these warnings are not always correct. Google for "spurious warnings uninitialized", e.g:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/6591 http://kerneltrap.org/node/6591
An unrelated example where gcc (and icc) emit needless warnings about integer types is this:
int x = foo();
unsigned y = (x == 0);
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of cranking up the warning levels, but there is a reason why not everything is included in -Wall (yes, "uninitialized" is included, I know).
- torpor 17y agoAs a professional C coder for 20+ years, with well over a million lines of code under my belt, I can tell you that anyone that is ignoring warnings because of a buggy compiler is using the wrong compiler and should fix that immediately. I work on SIL-4 rated systems for life-protection applications. Absolutely ZERO TOLERANCE for warnings is a requirement in this job, and every single time it has been addressed, the warning gave us a clue how to fix something. Whether it was the code that needed fixing, or the compiler - either way, the alert is there. Ignore at your own peril.