------- Comment #14 from jellegeerts at gmail dot com 2010-08-31 21:16 ------- (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #12) > > @Manuel, > > So, perhaps then this bug report is at least sort of valid? It seems that to > > get `-Wuninitialized' to *fully* work, one would need at least `-O1'? > > No, higher levels of optimization may provide even better warnings (or disable > some false positives)
Aye, I thought about that, but I didn't know enough about GCC and opted for making the question a bit simpler. I realize now that I shouldn't have, as this kind of sloppiness might spread misinformation. Sorry. > There is no such thing as a *fully* working Wuninitialized. The results > totally > depend on which optimization passes are run (and their order). See > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Better_Uninitialized_Warnings for more background on > the issues involved and existing bugs. :( It is an unfortunate truth that GCC's warnings are sometimes far from optimal, but maybe it's also good in some ways. For one thing, it forces us programmers to be more conscientious while coding. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45468
