This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: delay branch bug?
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Hariharan <hariharans at picochip dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 16:25:25 +0200
- Subject: Re: delay branch bug?
- References: <4BFA671B.8010800@picochip.com> <4BFA89B5.4080702@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 08:14:13AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> From a correctness standpoint, the uninitialized value will never be
> used, so it should cause no ill effects on your code. The biggest
> effect would be tools like valgrind & purify (if supported on your
> architecture) would report the uninitialized memory read. [Which begs
> the question how does purify handle this on sparc-solaris? ]
I believe valgrind doesn't report uninitialized memory reads, only tracks
that there is uninitialized value (or perhaps just some bits of it) in some
location and only reports when you actually use that somewhere (e.g. do a
conditional branch that depends on the uninitialized value etc.).
Jakub