From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Kamala Narasimhan <kamala.narasimhan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Build errors with latest xen-unstable from staging
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 08:48:10 -0500
Message-ID: <4D4FF81A.1010609@gmail.com>
References: <4D4EF01F.5050106@gmail.com>
	<1297072022.13091.753.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <1297072022.13091.753.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 19:01 +0000, Kamala Narasimhan wrote:
> In the Linux kernel they have a macro to annotate such instances:
>         /*
>          * A trick to suppress uninitialized variable warning without generating any
>          * code
>          */
>         #define uninitialized_var(x) x = x
>         
> Do we want something similar?
> 
But why obfuscate a warning that is there for a good reason in most cases?
Aren't we better off initializing the variable or use a compiler option to
suppress it if we must?

Kamala