--- Comment #9 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 18:29
---
Jeff has a much better approach to solving this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00032.html
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from law at redhat dot com 2005-11-01 18:50 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Missing 'used
unintialized' warning
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 18:29 +, dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
--- Comment #9 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01
--- Comment #11 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-11-01 18:56 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Missing 'used unintialized' warning
On Tuesday 01 November 2005 13:50, law at redhat dot com wrote:
I'd rather you not assign it to me just yet -- while I think my approach
is better,
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 01:41
---
Downgrading to P5; this would never be release-critical.
Missing this warning does seem a shame though. And, I think that people who
want this warning would rather have false positives (which can be avoid with
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-25
11:37 ---
Personally, I prefer misdiagnosing uninit-5.c as a possible uninitialized use,
rather than missing this pretty nasty case.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.0 Regression] Missing|[4.1 Regression] Missing
|'used unintialized' warning |'used unintialized' warning
Target
