Warning -Wmaybe-uninitialized in normal.c at 9.1.1863 (and possibly shortly before it)

[Tony Mechelynck]

This happens in Normal and Huge builds, not in Tiny. Also in Normal
with Motif GUI but not in Tiny with Motif GUI:

normal.c: In function ‘normal_cmd’:
normal.c:991:19: warning: ‘prev_VIsual_active’ may be used
uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
991 | if (finish_op || prev_VIsual_active)
| ~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
normal.c:972:9: note: ‘prev_VIsual_active’ was declared here
972 | int prev_VIsual_active = VIsual_active;
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think it's over-cautiousness on the part of gcc (SUSE Linux) 15.2.1
20251006. It may look silly, but what about replacing line 972 by the
following?

/* avoid gcc warning -Wmaybe-uninitialized a little lower */
int prev_Visual_active = 0;
prev_Visual_active = Visual_active;

Best regards,
Tony.

[Christian Brabandt]

I don't understand how this can happen and the warning already shows
that prev_VIsual_active has been initialized, so not sure.

Well, I installed gcc-15 on my Debian box, but it doesn't complain.

Thanks,
Christian
--
Romeo wasn't bilked in a day.
-- Walt Kelly, "Ten Ever-Lovin' Blue-Eyed Years With Pogo"

[John]

Perhaps the warning comes about because the various goto statements (at
lines 831, 836, 861 and 920) will take us to line 986 which is below the
initialisation of prev_VIsual_active at line 972.

Just a thought.

Cheers
John

[Christian Brabandt]

On Sa, 18 Okt 2025, John wrote:

> On 18-Oct-2025 05:00, Christian Brabandt wrote:
> > On Do, 16 Okt 2025, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
> >
> > > This happens in Normal and Huge builds, not in Tiny. Also in Normal
> > > with Motif GUI but not in Tiny with Motif GUI:
> > >
> > > normal.c: In function ‘normal_cmd’:
> > > normal.c:991:19: warning: ‘prev_VIsual_active’ may be used
> > > uninitialized [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> > > 991 | if (finish_op || prev_VIsual_active)
> > > | ~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > normal.c:972:9: note: ‘prev_VIsual_active’ was declared here
> > > 972 | int prev_VIsual_active = VIsual_active;
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > I think it's over-cautiousness on the part of gcc (SUSE Linux) 15.2.1
> > > 20251006. It may look silly, but what about replacing line 972 by the
> > > following?
> > >
> > > /* avoid gcc warning -Wmaybe-uninitialized a little lower */
> > > int prev_Visual_active = 0;
> > > prev_Visual_active = Visual_active;
> > I don't understand how this can happen and the warning already shows
> > that prev_VIsual_active has been initialized, so not sure.
> >
> > Well, I installed gcc-15 on my Debian box, but it doesn't complain.

> Perhaps the warning comes about because the various goto statements (at
> lines 831, 836, 861 and 920) will take us to line 986 which is below the
> initialisation of prev_VIsual_active at line 972.

Ah yes, possible. Let's see if https://github.com/vim/vim/pull/18597
fixes this warning.

Thanks,
Christian
--
I'm ANN LANDERS!! I can SHOPLIFT!!

[Christian Brabandt]

On Sa, 18 Okt 2025, Christian Brabandt wrote:

> Ah yes, possible. Let's see if https://github.com/vim/vim/pull/18597
> fixes this warning.

So I merged it in. The warning should be fixed now with v9.1.1868

Thanks,
Christian
--
Some of us are becoming the men we wanted to marry.
-- Gloria Steinem