This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Ada files now checked in
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- Subject: Re: Ada files now checked in
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:19:05 -0400
- Cc: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at onetel dot net dot uk>, dewar at gnat 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
- Organization: Red Hat Canada
- References: <20011015133646.A24090@tornado.cygnus.com> <200110151800.LAA17648@atrus.synopsys.com>
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Joe Buck wrote:
> Maybe the uninitialized warnings should be split in two. We can identify
> three cases:
> 1) if the function is called an uninitialized use of foo will always occur.
> 2) if the function is called an uninitialized use of foo will never occur.
> 3) can't tell (analysis too weak, halting problem etc).
> Improving the analysis reduces the size of set 3 and creates more members
> of sets 1 and 2. But it seems that we could warn by default for set 1,
> reporting obvious errors even with -O off, and have a flag that turns on
> warnings for set 3.
Sounds good to me. Thanks a lot for the feedback. I'll work a
patch for splitting the analysis and add a new -Wuninitialized
flag for reporting the 'maybes'.