------- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-20 15:03 ------- (In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > I now think that Andrew is right and that PR33086 and this one are INVALID. > > 'const' does not mean read-only in C++ at all, and much less in C. > > atoi(const > > char *) could always initialize buf[]. > > Uh, no, it can't. If it did (by casting away the 'const' from its argument > and then writing into the array), this would lead to a segfault: > ------------- > const char a[3] = "10"; > int main () { > return atoi (a); > } > -------------
This testcase has nothing to do with uninitialized variables. If the variable is 'const' already, then there will never be a warning. Will it produce segmentation fault for a local automatic uninitialized pointer? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10138