This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: -Wuninitialized issues
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:53:49PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 08:44:51PM -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.
> I don't have that experience, but that's mainly because I use more than
> one compiler version and turn warnings on in all. Anything marginal
> is probably gone already.
GDB and binutils have relatively limited, but increasing, exposure to
-Werror problems since they've enabled it. So far my experience holds:
every newly tried release of GDB triggers a couple new -Wuninitialized
(It's lost in the noise for GDB, though, which died a terrible death
relating to char * vs unsigned char * in prototypes that we're still
trying to sort out.)