Bug 81329 - Missing -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
Summary: Missing -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 18501
Alias: None
Product: gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: middle-end (show other bugs)
Version: 7.1.1
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Not yet assigned to anyone
URL:
Keywords: diagnostic
Depends on:
Blocks: Wuninitialized
  Show dependency tree / graph
 
Reported: 2017-07-05 21:06 UTC by Tudor Bosman
Modified: 2017-11-08 00:46 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Host:
Target:
Build:
Known to work:
Known to fail:
Last reconfirmed:

Attachments
Missed maybe-uninitialized warning: test case (151 bytes, text/plain)
2017-07-05 21:06 UTC, Tudor Bosman 		Details
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Tudor Bosman 2017-07-05 21:06:43 UTC 
Created attachment 41689 [details]
Missed maybe-uninitialized warning: test case

The attached test case should warn, as foo is used uninitialized if the "atoi(argv[1]) != 0" branch isn't taken. There are no warnings, even with "-Wall -Wextra".

Tested with gcc 7.1, both with -O0 and with -O3, see https://godbolt.org/g/J5wRSM
Comment 1 Andrew Pinski 2017-07-05 21:18:05 UTC 
There are a few duplicates of this bug floating around.
Comment 2 Tudor Bosman 2017-07-05 21:25:27 UTC 
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> There are a few duplicates of this bug floating around.

I figured, but I don't know anything about gcc internals to tell which of these duplicates are the same bug and which are different (same symptom, different internal cause).
Comment 3 Manuel López-Ibáñez 2017-11-08 00:46:56 UTC 
foo is assumed initialized to 1 by CCP and the whole "atoi(argv[1]) != 0" branch is optimized away. -O0 does not warn because initialization is conditional.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 18501 ***