Re: GCC 4.1 Status Report (2005-08-21)

[Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>]

On Aug 22, 2005, at 1:27 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:

> (Quite a few of the diagnostic messages
> stem from the design decision to issue warnings from the
> optimizers...)

Only 8 out of 49 at that, though some are very minor as two are just
complaining wording of the warning.  And almost all are uninitialized
warnings which are always questionable as there is no way to warn from
the front-end without flow control. In fact all those 8 are either
unreachable code, uninitialized, or return.  All of which can be shown
have to be done with control flow.

If you take the following example (for unreachable code):
void f(void)
{
  goto a;
b:
  goto c;
a:
  return;
c:
  goto b;
}

There is no way to know that the "goto c" and "goto b" are dead without
some kind of control flow.

I don't think singling out these 8 are useful.  Considering 28 out of 49
are C++ bugs and at least one of those keep on getting pushed from one 
release
to the next.  If we don't care about diagnostic bugs (which we really 
should
but it seems like we don't), then can we just remove the target 
milestones
for all of those too.

-- Pinski