[Bug c++/105534] -Wmaybe-uninitialized cases shouldn't suppress -Wuninitialized warnings

2022-05-09 Thread redbeard0531 at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105534 --- Comment #4 from Mathias Stearn --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > Note there's > > _2 = value_1(D) * x_2; > > where _2 might be effectively uninitialized iff x_2 is not zero. When x_2 > is zero then _2 has a well-defined

[Bug c++/105534] -Wmaybe-uninitialized cases shouldn't suppress -Wuninitialized warnings

2022-05-09 Thread redbeard0531 at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105534 --- Comment #3 from Mathias Stearn --- One slightly confusing aspect is that the wording of the flag implies that the variable may or may not be uninitialzied (because in -Wmaybe-uninitialized maybe binds directly to uninitialized), while phrasi

[Bug c++/105534] -Wmaybe-uninitialized cases shouldn't suppress -Wuninitialized warnings

2022-05-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105534 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Note there's _2 = value_1(D) * x_2; where _2 might be effectively uninitialized iff x_2 is not zero. When x_2 is zero then _2 has a well-defined value. So to start thinking about this I'd do a RPO wal

[Bug c++/105534] -Wmaybe-uninitialized cases shouldn't suppress -Wuninitialized warnings

2022-05-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105534 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |12.1.0 Last reconfirmed|