On 06/12/2011 20:33, Jeff Law wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/06/11 12:21, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
While using the optimizers to improve the quality of uninitialized
warnings does have some benefits, those benefits are outweighed by
the drawbacks. We need to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/11 01:19, David Brown wrote:
Would it be possible then to have switches for different levels,
such as is done with the strict aliasing warnings?
Well, there's two obvious levels... Not sure if there's a good way to
get something in
On 12/7/2011 1:05 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
Do people often intentionally run gcc without any optimisations
these days?
Certainly. Compile speed and debugging being the primary reasons.
Actually speaking for myself, I run the compiler at -O0 much
*more* than I used to do. Why? Because gdb simply
On 07/12/11 19:05, Jeff Law wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/07/11 01:19, David Brown wrote:
Would it be possible then to have switches for different levels,
such as is done with the strict aliasing warnings?
Well, there's two obvious levels... Not sure if there's
On 12/7/2011 2:36 PM, David Brown wrote:
\
I guess experiences vary. As I said, I find debugging easier with -O1 -
but maybe that's because most of my work is on embedded targets, which
usually means RISC cpus with plenty of registers. The unoptimised code
for these is usually totally
Robert == Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com writes:
Robert Now the debugging at -O1 is hopeless (even parameters routinely
Robert disappear), and so I am forced to do everything at -O0.
There's been a lot of work on gcc in this area.
Please file bugs for cases you find.
Tom
Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com writes:
The worst thing for me about -O1 is arguments disappearing in the trace
back, that's really a deal breaker.
Wasn't Alexandre Oliva's VTA work supposed to help this kind of
thing...? Did that ever get merged?
-miles
--
Joy, n. An emotion variously
Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org writes:
Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com writes:
The worst thing for me about -O1 is arguments disappearing in the trace
back, that's really a deal breaker.
Wasn't Alexandre Oliva's VTA work supposed to help this kind of
thing...? Did that ever get merged?
It did
On 05/12/2011 22:43, Jeff Law wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/02/11 06:03, Patrice B wrote:
Sorry for the noise, the problem is already tracked here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
Le 2 décembre 2011 10:42, Patrice Bouchandpbfwdl...@gmail.com a
I agree with David, it would make our life easier if a warning is
triggered in such a case
Patrice
Le 6 décembre 2011 09:04, David Brown da...@westcontrol.com a écrit :
On 05/12/2011 22:43, Jeff Law wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/02/11 06:03, Patrice B wrote:
On 05/12/2011 21:43, Jeff Law wrote:
When the uninitialized initialized to 10 paths meet, the compiler
(correctly) pretends the value for the uninitialized path is 10 as
well.
Wouldn't that be a good point at which to issue an uninitialised-use warning?
cheers,
DaveK
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/12/2011 21:43, Jeff Law wrote:
When the uninitialized initialized to 10 paths meet, the compiler
(correctly) pretends the value for the uninitialized path is 10 as
well.
Wouldn't that be a good point at
On 06/12/2011 14:26, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Dave Korndave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/12/2011 21:43, Jeff Law wrote:
When the uninitialized initialized to 10 paths meet, the compiler
(correctly) pretends the value for the uninitialized path is 10 as
On 12/6/2011 9:16 AM, David Brown wrote:
I would say it's better to have false positives in cases like this, than
false negatives, because there are easy ways to remove the false
positives.
My view is that for compiler warnings, you want to balance false
positives and false negatives. If you
On 06/12/2011 15:29, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/6/2011 9:16 AM, David Brown wrote:
I would say it's better to have false positives in cases like this, than
false negatives, because there are easy ways to remove the false
positives.
My view is that for compiler warnings, you want to balance
On 12/6/2011 10:18 AM, David Brown wrote:
Unfortunately, there are no such tools available that compare with gcc
and its warnings.
It's surprising this is true of C, it's certainly not true of Ada,
where CodePeer can do a much better job than GNAT+gcc together on
this kind of issue.
Every
Well I am not sure what you mean by a linter or lint program,
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lint_(software)
VERY early (and simple) static analysis program for C.
On 12/6/2011 10:32 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
Well I am not sure what you mean by a linter or lint program,
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lint_(software)
VERY early (and simple) static analysis program for C.
I know what lint is, but I never heard anyone referring
to static analysis
On 06/12/2011 16:27, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/6/2011 10:18 AM, David Brown wrote:
Unfortunately, there are no such tools available that compare with gcc
and its warnings.
It's surprising this is true of C, it's certainly not true of Ada,
where CodePeer can do a much better job than GNAT+gcc
On 06/12/2011 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/6/2011 10:32 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
Well I am not sure what you mean by a linter or lint program,
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lint_(software)
VERY early (and simple) static analysis program for C.
I know what lint is, but I never heard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/06/11 07:16, David Brown wrote:
I would say it's better to have false positives in cases like this,
than false negatives, because there are easy ways to remove the
false positives. It is exactly in cases like this, with complex
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 16:40 +0100, David Brown wrote:
On 06/12/2011 16:27, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/6/2011 10:18 AM, David Brown wrote:
Unfortunately, there are no such tools available that compare with gcc
and its warnings.
...
And there are large, expensive commercial tools that
On 6 December 2011 15:18, David Brown wrote:
But clearly the uninitialised warnings are useful, and users would like to
see them improved - if it is possible to do so without adversely affecting
code generation, of course.
Yes, we all like good things, and we all want more good things, as
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 09:29:30AM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/6/2011 9:16 AM, David Brown wrote:
I would say it's better to have false positives in cases like this, than
false negatives, because there are easy ways to remove the false
positives.
My view is that for compiler
David Brown da...@westcontrol.com writes:
The point of a warning like unintialised variable is static error
checking - it is to help spot mistakes in your code. And if there is
a path through the function that uses an uninitialised variable,
that's almost certainly a bug in your code - one
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/06/11 12:21, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
While using the optimizers to improve the quality of uninitialized
warnings does have some benefits, those benefits are outweighed by
the drawbacks. We need to completely reimplement this warning,
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
In theory we could go ahead and translate into SSA when not optimizing
which would remove the dependency on -O, at the expense of
compile-time performance.
We actually already do this ... As there is only SSA expand now.
Thanks,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/02/11 06:03, Patrice B wrote:
Sorry for the noise, the problem is already tracked here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
Le 2 décembre 2011 10:42, Patrice Bouchand pbfwdl...@gmail.com a
écrit :
Hello,
I suspect a
Hello,
I suspect a regression in uninitialized value detection, but before
opening a bug I request your advices on the following problem:
I build the following code :
#include stdio.h
#include stdlib.h
int main( int argc, char **argv )
{
Sorry for the noise, the problem is already tracked here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
Le 2 décembre 2011 10:42, Patrice Bouchand pbfwdl...@gmail.com a écrit :
Hello,
I suspect a regression in uninitialized value detection, but before opening
a bug I request your advices
30 matches
Mail list logo
