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: GCC 4.4/4.6/4.7 uninitialized warning regression?

From: "Hargett, Matt" <matt dot hargett at bluecoat dot com>
To: Cary Coutant <ccoutant at google dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google dot com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 19:44:22 +0000
Subject: RE: GCC 4.4/4.6/4.7 uninitialized warning regression?
References: <BANLkTimGpE8y3EDBy9VLATv5d_+GU31=wA@mail.gmail.com>,<BANLkTimWTCdCZUAq0LoVO21OSwby-Lp3yw@mail.gmail.com>

> > This brings out 2 questions.  Why don't GCC 4.4/4.6/4.7 warn it?
> > Why doesn't 64bit GCC 4.2 warn it?

> Good question. It seems that the difference is whether the compiler
> generates a field-by-field copy or a call to memcpy(). According to
> David, the trunk gcc in 32-bit mode doesn't call memcpy, but still
> doesn't warn. He's looking at it.

Is this related to this bug, which I filed a year or two ago?

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42561

It would indeed be very nice to get this taken care of, as this kind of analysis would really help find a lot of bugs that currently require commercial tools.

References:
- GCC 4.4/4.6/4.7 uninitialized warning regression?
  - From: H.J. Lu
- Re: GCC 4.4/4.6/4.7 uninitialized warning regression?
  - From: Cary Coutant

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