This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Uninitialized warnings



On Monday, July 16, 2001, at 08:25 PM, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>> So we set ourselves up for a warning that is likely to become as 
>> awkward as
>> the uninitialized warnings.
>
> Actually I find the uninitialized warnings rather useful and every know
> and then compile by program with "-O -Wall" just so I can get them and
> make sure everything is OK.

Ah yes, the uninitialized warnings.  Some of our users have noticed they 
only appear when optimization is on, and they don't like it.  It seems 
that the dataflow analysis required could be done even without other 
optimization, and probably wouldn't cost too much in terms of execution 
speed.  OTOH, gcc has behaved this way for about 15 years, and I doubt 
we're the first people to think of this, which gives me pause.  Is a 
patch that checks for uninitalized variables even without optimization 
likely to be accepted?


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