This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: New -Wall issues

From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: Chris Fairles <chris dot fairles at gmail dot com>, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:54:52 +0200
Subject: Re: New -Wall issues
References: <48EF2999.3010200@oracle.com> <fac6bb500810100411w1ba74c41y1ba4fa248cadd919@mail.gmail.com> <4348dea50810100443sd71ddbah1f08fd762179135b@mail.gmail.com>

Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Detecting uninitialised data requires the value-propagation pass of
> the optimiser, at -O0 it doesn't happen.
>   
Of course.

I think there are 2 real, and separate, issues here:

1- Whether the standard actually mandates that __r must remain
uninitialized in this case, or, in other terms, whether a random __r
doesn't cause problem for the functioning of the class after
construction, whether __r uninitialized is really intended, in yet other
terms.

2- Once more, it seems that the pragma system_headers doesn't really
suppress all the warnings, this apparently makes for a compiler PR, if
we don't have already one...

Paolo.

References:
- New -Wall issues
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: New -Wall issues
  - From: Chris Fairles
- Re: New -Wall issues
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]