This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: -Wuninitialized issues

On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 20:44 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:32:51PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 02:13:05AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > > | Have -Wuninitialized be a very simple detector, which is either in the front-ends
> > > | or in the middle-end so it could be shared (just like -Wunused).
> > > | Have -Wuninitialized=2, be the current -Wuninitialized.
> > > 
> > > That is backward.  Have -Wuninitialized means whatever it means today.
> > 
> > Agreed.  We don't want it to change much; people who use -Wall -Werror
> > will be particularly pissed off if gcc produces new, but bogus, warnings
> > for uninitialized variables (please feel free to produce new, but *valid*,
> > warnings).
> People who use -Wall -Werror are _already_ pissed off about
> -Wuninitialized.  It virtually guarantees that your build will fail on
> a new release of GCC.
Very true, but I don't think that's an execute to generate even more
false positives for them! :-)

Those groups of users also get upset anytime we add something -Wall, but
that's another discussion unto itself!


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]