This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR 18501. Before I mark it WONTFIX.
- From: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 08:57:29 +0000
- Subject: Re: PR 18501. Before I mark it WONTFIX.
- Organization: Codesourcery LLC
- References: <41C1F27D.email@example.com>
Diego Novillo wrote:
It will boil down to what we want to prioritize: false positives or
false negatives. I'm almost tempted to prioritize false positives (ie,
give a warning)
this is my inclination too.
, but that would break uninit-5.c which seems to be a
the reported case is more obviously an uninitialized use than the uninit-5.c
case. I.e. every path into the loop body results in an uninitialized
use, whereas the uninit-5 case not every path into the second if is an
uninitialized use. Furthermore, gcc used not to be able to detect the
uninit-5 case, but could detect the reported case -- so in 'enhancing'
uninit-5 we get a regression.
Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC
firstname.lastname@example.org :: http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk