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: Google SoC Project Proposal: Better Uninitialized Warnings

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:34:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Google SoC Project Proposal: Better Uninitialized Warnings
References: <6c33472e0703171128q3dff544dydd6ab16fe4a67323@mail.gmail.com> <45FE8FBD.4030607@redhat.com> <20070319173354.GC5208@synopsys.com> <1174326595.3549.59.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:49:55PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> Perhaps this ought to be looked at again with some seriousness.

I think this is an idea whose time has either come, or will shortly.
GCC's -O0 is much more extreme than that of other compilers I've used.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Google SoC Project Proposal: Better Uninitialized Warnings
  - From: Manuel López-Ibáñez
- Re: Google SoC Project Proposal: Better Uninitialized Warnings
  - From: Joe Buck

References:
- Google SoC Project Proposal: Better Uninitialized Warnings
  - From: Manuel López-Ibáñez
- Re: Google SoC Project Proposal: Better Uninitialized Warnings
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: Google SoC Project Proposal: Better Uninitialized Warnings
  - From: Joe Buck
- Re: Google SoC Project Proposal: Better Uninitialized Warnings
  - From: Andrew MacLeod

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