This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Contributing FreeBSD/aarch64 support
- From: Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd dot org>
- To: binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:41:08 -0500
- Subject: Re: Contributing FreeBSD/aarch64 support
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAPyFy2CuDQ3G=J32SmZ-_frpyBMeiq5HZujm8BJE_+tbJ2Jg6g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CA+=Sn1mkG2qOqP7pZuqwmHinW3LxuiTdPE10q0yB2t0iOK3LTw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAPyFy2CQn2L=2tY6aXynZP1rc3aZy-H8PcQGOwNhvURKbPyc9Q at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 9 February 2015 at 10:25, Ed Maste <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 8 February 2015 at 23:12, Andrew Pinski <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Also if you need
>> -Wno-uninitialized, it might make sense to figure out better patches
>> for those places where unitialized warnings happen.
> This one is fixed with:
> - struct bfd_link_hash_entry ehdr_start_save = ehdr_start_save;
> + struct bfd_link_hash_entry ehdr_start_save;
I missed that the redundant assignment was added intentionally (I
assumed it was an accident). It was done in commit f9c316c to
eliminate an uninitialized warning from older GCC.
H.J., do you have a suggestion on an approach for both old GCC and
recent Clang? Perhaps an explicit #if condition on __GNUC__ and
__GNUC_MINOR__ for the redundant assignment?