> On Dec 3, 2020, at 10:36 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On December 3, 2020 5:07:28 PM GMT+01:00, Qing Zhao <qing.z...@oracle.com
> <mailto:qing.z...@oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> of uninitialized analysis in the later stage.
>>>
>>> I don't see how the issue can be resolved, you can't get both, uninit
>>> warnings and no uninitialized memory.
>>> People can compile twice, once without -fzero-init to get uninit
>>> warnings and once with -fzero-init to get
>>> the extra "security".
>>
>> So, for GCC, you think that it’s okay to get rid of the following
>> requirement:
>>
>> C. The implementation needs to keep the current static warning on
>> uninitialized
>> variables untouched in order to avoid "forking the language”.
>>
>> Then, we can add explanation in the user documentation of the new
>> -fzero-init and also
>> that of the -Wuninitialized to inform users that -fzero-init will
>> change the behavior of -Wuninitialized.
>> In order to get the warnings, -fzero-init should not be added at the
>> same time?
>>
>> With this requirement being eliminated, implementation will be much
>> easier.
>>
>> We can add the new initialization during simplification phase. Then
>> this new option will work
>> for all languages. Is this reasonable?
>
> I think that's reasonable indeed. Eventually doing the init after the early
> uninit pass is possible as well.
You suggested to put the new pass after the early uninit pass? Why?
Qing
>
> Richard.
>
>> thanks.
>>
>> Qing
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
