# Warning-only fixes which may (depending on the compiler) not need to be

# applied but make the compilers more silent:

# Changes:

# 2005-2-20: Add inline comments as documentaiton

--- pico/osdep/unix

+++ pico/osdep/unix

@@ -2236,7 +2236,7 @@

 #ifdef	SIGCHLD

 	(void) signal(SIGCHLD,  SIG_DFL);

 #endif

-	if(execl("/bin/sh", "sh", "-c", eb, 0) < 0)

+	if(execl("/bin/sh", "sh", "-c", eb,(void*)0) < 0)

 	  exit(-1);

     }

     else {				/* error! */

--- pine/init.c

+++ pine/init.c

@@ -9284,7 +9284,24 @@

      */

     if(!err && !add_only_first_msg){

 	char *tempfile = NULL;

-	int   fd;

+	int   fd = 0;

+ /*

+  * Description for this initialisation:

+  * fd is is file descriptor, which is initialized in the line

+  * 

+  *   if(!err &&

+  *            (fd = open(tempfile, O_TRUNC|O_WRONLY|O_CREAT, 0600)) < 0){

+  *               q_status_message2(SM_ORDER | SM_DING, 3, 5,

+  *                               "Error opening temporary fi..."

+  * 

+  * the condition "!err" is superflous in this case, since it is checked at

+  * the entrance of this group and never changed, so fd gets assigned, which

+  * means it is initialized, and the code says that unless there is an error,

+  * the files gets closed.

+  * 

+  * So this analysis seems to say that the code works fine even without the

+  * initialisation here, but it makes gcc silent at this place.

+  */

 	if(rd->flags & NO_FILE){

 	    if(so_truncate(rd->sonofile, 0L) == 0)

--- pine/rules.c

+++ pine/rules.c

@@ -551,7 +551,21 @@

  int  rule_context;

  ENVELOPE *env;

 {

-    int rv;

+    int rv = 0;

+ /*

+  * This is code from Eduardo Chappa, he knows it very well and checked rv

+  * above to be ok even without the initialisation: This does not need

+  * initialization, because rv gets assigned in the code. The conditions in

+  * the for loop that contain rv is always satisfied in the first time the

+  * loop is run, that "condition" is not null, that is because any rule has a

+  * condition and an action, you can not have any of these null, otherwise the

+  * code nullifies the rule, which is the condition checked before we enter

+  * into that loop, and in the case the rule is null, the code is not

+  * executed, so there is no reason to touch rv in that case either.

+  *

+  * So this analysis seems to say that the code works fine even without the

+  * initialisation here, but it makes gcc silent at this place.

+  */

     char *result = NULL;

     CONDITION_S *condition;