https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99989
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> So perhaps just:
> --- gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-alloca.c.jj 2021-01-04 10:25:38.892233156 +0100
> +++ gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-alloca.c 2021-04-09 12:46:27.466847728 +0200
> @@ -124,9 +124,8 @@ public:
> alloca_type_and_limit (enum alloca_type type,
> wide_int i) : type(type), limit(i) { }
> alloca_type_and_limit (enum alloca_type type) : type(type)
> - { if (type == ALLOCA_BOUND_MAYBE_LARGE
> - || type == ALLOCA_BOUND_DEFINITELY_LARGE)
> - limit = wi::to_wide (integer_zero_node);
> + {
> + limit = wi::to_wide (integer_zero_node);
> }
> };
>
> in this case? Explicitly trying to have limit member conditionally
> uninitialized seems like a bad idea to me.
Yes, that looks good - the existing code is definitely odd, but maybe Martin
can clarify.
