This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Ada files now checked in
- To: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at onetel dot net dot uk>
- Subject: Re: Ada files now checked in
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 17:58:01 -0400
- Cc: dewar at gnat dot com, bosch at gnat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu, zack at codesourcery dot com
- Organization: Red Hat Canada
- References: <20011014150420.0BE81F28BE@nile.gnat.com> <200110142017.VAA03339@meolyon.local>
On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Diego Novillo:
> > <<> - if its only reaching definition is the ghost def, the variable
> > > *is* used uninitialized.
> ...
>
> dewar:
> > A warning is generally saying that IF the code is executed, THEN there
> > is a problem. Sure it is nice to delete such warnings in obviously
>
> That's okay with me, as long as it is kept in mind that such a warning
> might still be a false positive inasmuch as the code might be unreachable.
> Diegos statement sounded a bit too absolute. When his explanation goes
> into a piece of documentation, it should be qualified as you did above.
>
Yes. My statement had been hastily worded. The implicit
assumption is that the code is indeed reachable. I will update
the documentation for -Wuninitialized. Thanks.
This warning is not on by default, it's only triggered by
-Wuninitialized. I expect more false positives for the 'maybe
used uninitialized' message. Mostly because we are emitting the
warning before any optimizations are performed. (See my message
on merging tree SSA for 3.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-10/msg00609.html)
Diego.