This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: -Wuninitialized issues
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 12:56 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> > We won't get perfect answers, which is fine given the nature of the
> > problem. However, I would like, to get *consistent* answers.
>
> Yes, I agree that's very important. In fact, I'd like to generalize
> that to say that -- as much as possible -- the same code should generate
> the same warnings across architectures, optimization levels, and
> releases as well. If -O3 causes us to say "might have been
> uninitialized, but we removed it" while -O0 just says "uninitialized"
> that's probably OK. But, having warnings not appear at -O0, or go away
> completely with higher levels of optimization isn't good.
I'm OK with this, as long as it's option controlled separate from
-Wuninitialized or it's enabled with something like -Wuninitialized-blah
I don't have terribly strong opinions on whether or not the warning
text changes. It's cool that we can distinguish the cases, but there
are more important things in life :-)
It's certainly easier to implement a switch that just changes when we
run the maybe-uninitialized code than it is to implement the changes
necessary to issue the more precise warnings in the two-pass approach.
Jeff