This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
To: Jeffrey A Law <law at redhat dot com>
Cc: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>,Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>,Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu dot integrable-solutions dot net>,Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>,Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>,"Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caipclassic dot rutgers dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 22:27:09 -0500
Subject: Re: -Wuninitialized issues
References: <200511030052.jA30qAY8005364@earth.phy.uc.edu> <m34q6umt3y.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net> <20051103013251.GF6099@synopsys.com> <20051103014451.GA16464@nevyn.them.org> <1130984226.29507.44.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 07:17:06PM -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> Very true, but I don't think that's an execute to generate even more
> false positives for them! :-)

I disagree.  The point of this set of warnings is that they would be
_simple_ and _consistent_.  Less likely to change across releases, and
easier to predict and explain to non-compiler-hackers.

If the option was available, I'd switch GDB over in a heartbeat.  Or at
least propose it.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC

References:
- Re: -Wuninitialized issues
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: -Wuninitialized issues
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: -Wuninitialized issues
  - From: Joe Buck
- Re: -Wuninitialized issues
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: -Wuninitialized issues
  - From: Jeffrey A Law

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