This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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: -Wuninitialized issues

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
To: Jeffrey A Law <law at redhat dot com>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:52:27 -0500
Subject: Re: -Wuninitialized issues
References: <4365CA5E.3070401@codesourcery.com> <1130802583.19967.122.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 04:49:43PM -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 23:40 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > In reviewing the PR list, I saw several (maybe 5?) PRs about problems
> > with -Wuninitialized.
> [ ... ]
> After pondering this some more I almost wonder if what we need is a 
> separate warning for variables which were potentially uninitialized
> but which optimization passes somehow proved were unused or the paths
> in which the variable was uninitialized were unexecutable.
> 
> So the early pass would catch unconditionally uninitialized variables;
> it would also record (but not warn for) maybe uninitialized variables
> (by detecting default definitions appearing in PHI nodes).

> Thoughts?

I think that sounds very clever...

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC

References:
- -Wuninitialized issues
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: -Wuninitialized issues
  - From: Jeffrey A Law

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