This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: -Wuninitialized issues
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>,Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu dot integrable-solutions dot net>,Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>,Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, law at redhat dot com,"Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caipclassic dot rutgers dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:44:51 -0500
- Subject: Re: -Wuninitialized issues
- References: <200511030052.jA30qAY8005364@earth.phy.uc.edu> <m34q6umt3y.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net> <20051103013251.GF6099@synopsys.com>
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:32:51PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 02:13:05AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > | Have -Wuninitialized be a very simple detector, which is either in the front-ends
> > | or in the middle-end so it could be shared (just like -Wunused).
> > | Have -Wuninitialized=2, be the current -Wuninitialized.
> >
> > That is backward. Have -Wuninitialized means whatever it means today.
>
> Agreed. We don't want it to change much; people who use -Wall -Werror
> will be particularly pissed off if gcc produces new, but bogus, warnings
> for uninitialized variables (please feel free to produce new, but *valid*,
> warnings).
People who use -Wall -Werror are _already_ pissed off about
-Wuninitialized. It virtually guarantees that your build will fail on
a new release of GCC.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC