From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,803df5f3f60558d5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: Uninitialized "out" parameters
Date: 1996/07/25
Message-ID: <4t7gv1$eaq@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 170047053
references: <4smh9i$gp5@krusty.irvine.com> <4ssn9r$p6e@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
 <4ste71$hg8@felix.seas.gwu.edu> <4svba5$j2i@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
 <4t3o3s$kt9@felix.seas.gwu.edu> <dewar.838180124@schonberg>
organization: Comp Sci, University of Melbourne
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

>Mike said
>
>  "Indeed. A compiler should give a warning, and in my experience, does,
>  if it can make a reasonably good guess. Some compilers (I think)
>  provide a compile-time flag that the programmer wants to treat warnings
>  as though they were fatal errors. I don;t see anything in gnatinfo to
>  suggest that GNAT does this, though."
>
>Mike, remember that GNAT is part of gcc, *all* the usual gcc options apply,
>as documented in the gcc manual.
[...]
>In "your gcc documentation" you will find the switch -Wuninitialized, which,
>used together with -O, causes gcc to give warnings for uninitialized
>variables. The GNAT frontend also catches some cases itself.

I think Mike was looking for gcc's `-Werror' option, which makes it
treat warnings as errors.

--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>   |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>   |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3         |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.