--- Comment #11 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-10 19:48 ---
This is FIXED in GCC 4.4. This may have fixed other uninitialized PRs, so if
you have reported one, please recheck with the a recent 4.4 revision
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-10 18:47 ---
Subject: Bug 20644
Author: manu
Date: Sun Aug 10 18:46:10 2008
New Revision: 138933
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=138933
Log:
2008-08-10 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR m
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-23 14:17 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Despite what I said before, for this particular case, we should never give a
> "is used" warning if the BB is not executed with 100% probability. Hmm, I'll
> check whether we can detect this.
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-22 17:38 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> gcc version 4.1.0 20051106 (experimental)
> ../t6.c: In function foo:
> ../t6.c:13: warning: j is used uninitialized in this function
>
Despite what I said bef
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-20 14:18 ---
Even simpler testcase:
int foo ()
{
int i = 0;
int j;
if (1 == i)
return j;
return 0;
}
This will only be reliably fixed by building a better SSA representation.
Moving the passes around will
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-08 17:25 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Bogus warning no longer issued with GCC 4.1 based compilers.
Huh:
gcc version 4.1.0 20051106 (experimental)
../t6.c: In function foo:
../t6.c:13: warning: j is used uninitialized in t
--- Comment #5 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-08 17:23 ---
Bogus warning no longer issued with GCC 4.1 based compilers.
--
law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from h dot b dot furuseth at usit dot uio dot no 2005-11-02
19:52 ---
I think I'd appreciate that warning when writing portable code:
The warning can be useful if the 1 is replaced with a macro
which may or may not expand to 1, or an enum defined in an #ifdef,
or an impl
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-26
01:13 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I can imagine that it may not be straightforward to fix but I can't think of a
> reason why a warning could ever be useful in this case (i.e., when the code is
> provably safe). I
--- Additional Comments From sebor at roguewave dot com 2005-03-26 01:08
---
I can imagine that it may not be straightforward to fix but I can't think of a
reason why a warning could ever be useful in this case (i.e., when the code is
provably safe). I could of course be missing somethin
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-26
00:43 ---
I think we had decided even though the code is unreachable, we want to warn
about this.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
12 matches
Mail list logo
