Re: [Emacs-diffs] master 6cd5678: Clarify compiler-pacifier in frame.c

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:33:22 -0700
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Let's suppose that the warning was correct and the hacker was wrong when
> >> judged it bogus.
> > The warning was correct, and I didn't decide it was bogus.  I added
> > the initialization because the warning was NOT bogus.
> 
> No, actually that GCC warning was a false alarm, in that the initialization 
> was 
> not needed: even without the initialization the C code has well-defined 
> behavior 
> because no uninitialized object is ever used.

I think you didn't read the code of XParseGeometry (the one that is
executed on MS-Windows) well enough, if you think GCC gave a false
alarm.