From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4782 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2001 10:25:42 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 19 Feb 2001 10:25:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 24345 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2001 10:25:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 13505 Received: (qmail 24334 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2001 10:25:36 -0000 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:25:34 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200102191025.LAA11855@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> From: Sven Wischnowsky To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk In-reply-to: "Bart Schaefer"'s message of Sun, 18 Feb 2001 01:21:48 +0000 Subject: Re: 4.0.1-pre-1 on RH6.2 Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Feb 17, 12:51am, Peter Stephenson wrote: > } Subject: Re: 4.0.1-pre-1 on RH6.2 > } > } "Bart Schaefer" wrote: > } > > } > zftp.c: In function `zfgetline': > } > zftp.c:730: warning: variable `added' might be clobbered by `longjmp' > } > } These have always been there and I've never been able to understand what > } it's talking about with those particular variables. > > Ah, I see. It's warning you which variables have been given register > storage allocation by the compiler, and which therefore won't be unwound > properly when longjmp() takes you back up the stack to the setjmp() spot. > As long as none of those are referenced in the `if (setjmp(...)) { ... }' > blocks (which appears to be true), everything should be OK. Yes, I had a look at that, too , when I first saw it. We can get rid of the warnings by sticking `volatile' before the declarations if we care. Bye Sven -- Sven Wischnowsky wischnow@informatik.hu-berlin.de