Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FDD01337B3E
	for <pgsql-committers-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 23 Jan 2011 14:36:40 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 02759-08
	for <pgsql-committers-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:36:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D451336FA7
	for <pgsql-committers@postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 23 Jan 2011 14:36:32 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p0NIaWVj021860;
	Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:36:32 -0500 (EST)
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
cc: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Suppress uninitialized-variable warning. 
In-reply-to: <AANLkTin-kiwf=Pe32snOXUop5mF_Ly9cJUjHvdSTDnGR@mail.gmail.com> 
References: <E1Ph4MV-0006Jg-VV@gemulon.postgresql.org>
	<AANLkTikSG87z2QBWQniPshnmC+jsgWJkCwssJNsPG5Dj@mail.gmail.com>
	<12484.1295806865@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<AANLkTin-kiwf=Pe32snOXUop5mF_Ly9cJUjHvdSTDnGR@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
	message dated "Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:22:58 +0100"
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:36:31 -0500
Message-ID: <21859.1295807791@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201101/237
X-Sequence-Number: 43498

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 19:21, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>>> Which compiler did that come out of? I don't think I saw it on any of
>>> the ones I tried..

>> gcc 4.4.5, standard on Fedora 13.  I'm surprised that yours did not show
>> it, because the usage pattern looks beyond gcc's ability to prove safe.

> Interesting. I just make clean/make:ed it again to make sure, and it
> doesn't. And I'm on:
> gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.4.4-14ubuntu5) 4.4.5

[ scratches head... ]  Maybe you are using different switches, perhaps
optimization higher than -O2?

But anyway, I think the project policy for such things is that we want
to suppress warnings when feasible on all common compilers, so the patch
is appropriate no matter what the specific reason for the difference is.

			regards, tom lane