[Bug libstdc++/23497] [4.1 regression] Bogus 'is used uninitialized...' warning about std::complexT
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-15 16:31 --- Hold on, in C99, complex is a scaler type so libstdc++ is using a GCC extension over what C99 requires which causes this. And my comment in #6 still holds for this bug. I think libstdc++ should rethink about this. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Component|middle-end |libstdc++ http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23497
[Bug libstdc++/23497] [4.1 regression] Bogus 'is used uninitialized...' warning about std::complexT
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-12 19:18 --- Agree with Gaby. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23497
[Bug libstdc++/23497] [4.1 regression] Bogus 'is used uninitialized...' warning about std::complexT
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-08-22 19:49 --- Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] Bogus 'is used uninitialized...' warning about std::complexT pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | This is a bug in libstdc++ headers. Since complex has been come a | scalar and cannot be loaded piece wise. That does not make any sense to me. complex is an aggregate, whether it can be loaded separately or not is irrelevant from libstdc++ perspective. This is truly a middle-end bug. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23497
[Bug libstdc++/23497] [4.1 regression] Bogus 'is used uninitialized...' warning about std::complexT
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-20 18:27 --- This is a bug in libstdc++ headers. Since complex has been come a scalar and cannot be loaded piece wise. -- What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |libstdc++ Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23497
[Bug libstdc++/23497] [4.1 regression] Bogus 'is used uninitialized...' warning about std::complexT
--- Additional Comments From jan at etpmod dot phys dot tue dot nl 2005-08-20 19:58 --- (In reply to comment #1) I can confirm this on alphaev68-linux, even without -g. C test case: -g should have been -Wall. Sorry about that. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23497