This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/25649] [4.2 regression] Bogus "uninitialized" warning
- From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 24 Jan 2006 18:27:52 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/25649] [4.2 regression] Bogus "uninitialized" warning
- References: <bug-25649-2736@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-24 18:27 -------
(In reply to comment #12)
> Andrew, please stop saying stupid things. If you can support your claims with
> the library chapters of the standards, ok, otherwise please spend time on
> something else.
What does the standard have to do with this bug? I don't get it. Checking if
the "cin >> x" failed is standard practice in fact encouraged by the standard.
If you look at my example in comment #9, it shows that we set the variable x if
that fails but we get a warning still as the middle-end does not know what the
library is doing behinds it back.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25649