This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug middle-end/81782] [7/8 Regression] Yet another -Wmaybe-uninitialized false positive with empty array


https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81782

Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |manu at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> This is only with -O0, when we do not optimize away the dead loop.
> 
> Perhaps at -O0 we could just punt if it is a conditional memory use (and we
> haven't e.g. found a CLOBBER guarded with the same condition), though it
> could mean we wouldn't also warn for many places where we should warn.

It seems an acceptable trade-off as long as we warn with higher optimization
levels. That general limitation already exists with -O0.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]