Re: Uninitialized subtype variables

[alex@MIMSY.CS.UMD.EDU (Alex Blakemore)]

In article <EACHUS.92Oct23221628@Dr_No.mitre.org> eachus@Dr_No.mitre.org (Rober
t I. Eachus) writes:
 >      One slight addition to Tucker's list.  Another alternative that a
> compiler can take is to choose to initialize the variable instead of
> doing the check.

though this is a nice trick, it hurts portability.

an erroneous program could pass through rigorous testing without a hint of
the inherent problems.  They could then show up seemingly in random
places in another compiler.  At least, without this trick there is a decent
chance you will find the error - with or without optimizing the checks away.

even though this is allowed by Ada83. 
I would prefer the compiler did not initialze
variables that I did not initialize.  

It would be nice as a compilation option to choose
between allowing the optimizer to assume all variables were in range (fast code
)
and disallowing check removal which could depend on unitialized variable
being in range (safe code).  This is not the same as suppressing all checks.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------
Alex Blakemore alex@cs.umd.edu   NeXT mail accepted