This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Suspicion of regression in uninitialized value detection
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 09:29:30AM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 12/6/2011 9:16 AM, David Brown wrote:
>
> >I would say it's better to have false positives in cases like this, than
> >false negatives, because there are easy ways to remove the false
> >positives.
>
> My view is that for compiler warnings, you want to balance false
> positives and false negatives. If you give too many false positives
> people just turn off the warning anyway. I think the current balance
> is probably about right.
>
> If you want more thorough warnings, with no false negatives, then
> separate static analysis tools are more appropriate. They can do a
> better job than the compiler in any case.
I'm generally not happy with my code unless I clear all the warnings.
Ruben
--
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://fairuse.nylxs.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"
"The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the ability to participate in our own society."
"> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be damned.<
You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st dynasty in Ancient Egypt. I guess you missed that one."
© Copyright for the Digital Millennium