Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 13:42:39 04/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2000 at 16:32:20, Christophe Theron wrote: >On April 04, 2000 at 14:36:10, Frank Phillips wrote: > >>On April 03, 2000 at 22:35:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>[Snip] >>>>It is indicative of an uninitialized variable. A procedure call such as the >>>ones above simply stomp on the stack before your code gets to use the value >>>that was not initialized. >>> >>>you might try gcc -Wall -O2 to let it build a dependency graph and look for >>>such problems. If it sees a path from the top of the procedure to the bottom, >>>where any variable is referenced before it is initialized (local variables >>>only) it will give you a warning... >> >>Bob/Christophe >> >>Just as you predicted, an uninitialised variable. Everything is now back to >>normal. >> >>Easy when you know how……… Thanks, this was driving me insane. >> >>The gcc Wall option is very useful and found the extra variable easy. I had >>looked and looked and looked and…………………. >> >>Frank > > >I suggest to have -Wall all the time. Do not change the warning level to match >the needs of your sources. Change your sources so -Wall detects NO warning, and >it will save yourself from a lot of trouble. > > > Christophe Yes, I try compiling with maximum warnings on multiple compilers to catch as many potential problems as possible. I have used CC from SGI and CC from SUN at University, g++ at home and there, and MSVC and IBM VisualAge for C++ from home. Going through that process brings my attention to all sorts of things that I might well have missed otherwise. Dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.