This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c/42884] GCC (v4.3.3) fails to detect uninitialized variable
- From: "thutt at vmware dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 3 Sep 2010 13:07:50 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c/42884] GCC (v4.3.3) fails to detect uninitialized variable
- References: <bug-42884-18720@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #21 from thutt at vmware dot com 2010-09-03 13:07 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> Is 'coverity' a compiler? I don't think so.
>
Coverity is not a tool that generates code, but it does perform
all the syntactic & semantic analysis that a code-generating compiler will.
Then, it goes beyond that with further static analysis.
> Do you have actual examples of
> *compilers* which, everything taken into account, decided to make sure this
> case is worth warning?
That's the worst argument I've read in a long time.
Do we need proof that another compiler does something before the gcc
team will take it up now?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42884