This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
- To: Kevin Atkinson <kevina at users dot sourceforge dot net>
- Subject: Uninitialized warnings
- From: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:51:06 -0700
- Cc: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at redhat dot com>, Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
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?