This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Ada files now checked in
- To: dewar at gnat dot com
- Subject: Re: Ada files now checked in
- From: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at onetel dot net dot uk>
- Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 21:17:15 +0100 (BST)
- Cc: amylaar at onetel dot net dot uk, dnovillo at redhat dot com, bosch at gnat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu, zack at codesourcery dot com
> <<> - if its only reaching definition is the ghost def, the variable
> > *is* used uninitialized.
> A warning is generally saying that IF the code is executed, THEN there
> is a problem. Sure it is nice to delete such warnings in obviously
That's okay with me, as long as it is kept in mind that such a warning
might still be a false positive inasmuch as the code might be unreachable.
Diegos statement sounded a bit too absolute. When his explanation goes
into a piece of documentation, it should be qualified as you did above.
Moreover, warnings that can give false positives should have an option
to turn them off, lest all warnings become useless in code that triggers
false positives of one kind too often. I know we can do that right now
with uninitialized warnings, but the temptation might be there if you
thought that your 'is used uninitialized' warning never gave false
positives to make it independent of -Wuninitialized.