Re: [PATCH 0/4] drop some "int x = x" hacks to silence gcc warnings

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mar 22, 2013, 16:18 UTC
Message-ID: <20130322161837.GG3083@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20130321154402.GA25907@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:44:02AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> >     I am for dropping "= x" and leaving it uninitialized at the
> >     declaration site, or explicitly initializing it to some
> >     reasonable starting value (e.g. NULL if it is a pointer) and
> >     adding a comment to say that the initialization is to squelch
> >     compiler warnings.
> 
> I'd be in favor of that, too. In many cases, I think the fact that gcc
> cannot trace the control flow is a good indication that it is hard for a
> human to trace it, too. And in those cases we would be better off
> restructuring the code slightly to make it more obvious to both types of
> readers.
> 
> Two patches to follow.
> 
>   [5/4]: fast-import: clarify "inline" logic in file_change_m
>   [6/4]: run-command: always set failed_errno in start_command

And here are two more; with these, our code base should be free of "x = x" initializations (at least according to clang).

  [7/4]: submodule: clarify logic in show_submodule_summary
  [8/4]: match-trees: drop "x = x" initializations

Not pressing, obviously, but since I had just analyzed the code yesterday, I wanted to do it while they were still fresh in my mind.

-Peff