https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b362d7947b37059fdb6de62145fa5146258dd58f
commit r12-2475-gb362d7947b37059fdb6de62145fa5146258dd58f
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #16 from Leon Winter ---
I just checked again with gcc 9.2.1 and the issue disappeared.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #15 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Leon Winter from comment #14)
> I am not sure how smart he diagnostic of GCC is supposed to be it seems that
> the source base of GCC itself has fallen victim to the false warning.
-Wmayb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #14 from Leon Winter ---
I am not sure how smart he diagnostic of GCC is supposed to be it seems that
the source base of GCC itself has fallen victim to the false warning.
The following commit fixes a -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning:
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #13 from Leon Winter ---
The incorrect warning is only displayed when using an optimization level better
than none (-O0) (this applies to your testcase and my real-world code). Your
minimized test case is already wrongfully blamed by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #12 from Leon Winter ---
> Are you saying that GCC 4.9 does not warn? That would be surprising and a
> regression. If you could find the revision that started warning, that would
> be helpful.
Funny you would ask, it turns out that o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #11 from Leon Winter ---
Created attachment 37855
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37855&action=edit
Current test case
gcc version 4.9.3
$ gcc -std=gnu99 -O1 -Wall -Wextra -o foo main.c
$ gcc -std=gnu99 -O2 -Wal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Leon Winter from comment #9)
> > If you declare it outside the loop body, gcc generates exactly the same code
> > for a 'for' and a 'do-while'.
>
> You are right. When I did the testing,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #9 from Leon Winter ---
> If you declare it outside the loop body, gcc generates exactly the same code
> for a 'for' and a 'do-while'.
You are right. When I did the testing, I mistakenly left out "-O1" or such so I
did not see the wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Leon Winter from comment #7)
> Maybe a better solution is to hint the compiler that the loop body will be
> run at least once. A do-while seems to imply that (and the compiler does not
> pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #7 from Leon Winter ---
> #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wuninitialized"
>
> is your friend.
We do like this warning and threat it as an error as such situations normally
are a mistake which could lead to errors later on this swit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I think the issue is that uninit doesn't even try to see whether the loop
PHI node has its backedge always executed and that results in an always
initialized PHI result. It's also not that easy as it doesn'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
--- Comment #5 from Leon Winter ---
Still persists.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
Leon Winter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|5.0 |5.2.1
--- Comment #4 from Leon Winter ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
Leon Winter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.1 |5.0
--- Comment #3 from Leon Winter ---
L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||63278
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCO
18 matches
Mail list logo
