https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36550
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36550
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Fri Dec 15 22:35:51 2017
New Revision: 255731
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255731&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/36550
* tree-ssa-threadupdate.c (coun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36550
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36550
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #15 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36550
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Predicate analysis is not able to figure out this case because it cannot see
that the default def is also conditional on cond1_8(D) != 0, thus warn_15 is
never warn_5(D)(13).
(The callgraph is also a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36550
rootkit85 at yahoo dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rootkit85 at yahoo dot it
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36550
--- Comment #12 from Vincent Riviere
2011-04-17 22:17:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 24023
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24023
Very simple testcase
I hit the "may be used uninitialized in this function" bug when compiling th
--- Comment #11 from davidxl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-20 23:55
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > check() can return 1 on the first call and 0 on the second and if *argv is
> > NULL
> > then then "bug" will be used uninitialized.
>
> right, but this does
--- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-12 22:05 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I do not really understand problem 5 for the case when the only dependancy for
> the code-path check is a local variable. In this case the value cannot be
> change by any other code than exis
--- Comment #9 from corinl at gmx dot de 2009-02-12 21:53 ---
I do not really understand problem 5 for the case when the only dependancy for
the code-path check is a local variable. In this case the value cannot be
change by any other code than existing between the two checks, so this ca
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-12 11:45 ---
I added this as Problem 5 in the wiki:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Better_Uninitialized_Warnings
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36550
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-12 11:22 ---
*** Bug 39133 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-07 15:05 ---
*** Bug 27289 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-04 00:09 ---
*** Bug 39088 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-06 21:11 ---
*** Bug 38037 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirme
16 matches
Mail list logo
