At Fri, 17 Dec 2010 03:43:42 +0000,
Chris Ball wrote:
Well, this is always a gray-zone question. One prefers fixing it
either via uninitialized_var() or by setting a bogus value. But, this
would cover any possible real bug in future. Thus another prefers
ignoring it, because it's just a compiler bug (mostly of old gcc).
After all, it's up to maintainer, so take as you like :)
thanks,
Takashi
--