This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Uninitialized warnings
- To: Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe dot com>
- Subject: Re: Uninitialized warnings
- From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:42:42 -0700
- Cc: Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>, Kevin Atkinson <kevina at users dot sourceforge dot net>, Joern Rennecke <amylaar at redhat dot com>, Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
On Tuesday, July 17, 2001, at 03:33 PM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 09:51:06AM -0700, Dale Johannesen wrote:
>> we're the first people to think of this, which gives me pause. Is a
>> patch that checks for uninitalized variables even without optimization
>> likely to be accepted?
>
> Please don't add any warning that can generate false positives.
> I'd rather have no warning at all for 100 actual bugs than
> 100 correct warnings and a false positive. [...]
I think there's some confusion here. What Dale is getting at
is that -Wuninitialized is basically useless without -O<something>,
so why not make -Wuninitialized turn on enough dataflow analysis
to be meaningful, but without letting it alter the output? In other
words, fix -Wuninitialized, even it means making the compiler run
a little more slowly when the flag is on.
The current documented behavior just seems lame to me, one of
those snake-pit-in-the-middle-of-the-living-room-floor traditional
things that don't make any sense to an objective observer.
Stan