Re: Suspicion of regression in uninitialized value detection

[David Brown <david dot brown at hesbynett dot no>]

On 07/12/11 19:05, Jeff Law wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/07/11 01:19, David Brown wrote:
>
> > Would it be possible then to have switches for different levels,
> > such as is done with the strict aliasing warnings?
> Well, there's two obvious levels...  Not sure if there's a good way to
> get something in between.
>
>
> > Do people often intentionally run gcc without any optimisations
> > these days?
> Certainly.  Compile speed and debugging being the primary reasons.

I guess experiences vary.  As I said, I find debugging easier with -O1 - 
but maybe that's because most of my work is on embedded targets, which 
usually means RISC cpus with plenty of registers.  The unoptimised code 
for these is usually totally incomprehensible, and the target speed is 
several times slower, because of all the extra work done moving data 
onto and off from the stack.

> However, as was mentioned we're always going into SSA (as a result of
> the SSA->RTL expansion path), so that issue is gone.
>
>
> > >
> >
> > In my opinion, we should nuke -Wall - these warning options should
> > all be enabled unless explicitly /disabled/ with the -W options.
> > And -Werror should be enabled by default too.  Just think how many
> > bugs would be found in existing software if developers were pushed
> > into using their tools effectively!
> Well, lots of folks would disagree with that suggestion.  And that's
> the root of the problem with this kind of issue -- different
> developers have different needs.  Any significant change we make in
> this space is probably going to make equal numbers of developers happy
> and mad at the same time.

Obviously /my/ way of programming is /the/ correct way, and everyone 
should be forced to follow the same rules :-)

mvh.,

David

> jeff