From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13997 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2007 14:07:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 11779 invoked by uid 48); 19 Feb 2007 14:07:02 -0000 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:07:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070219140702.11776.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/30856] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] Missing "warning: '$FOO' may be used uninitialized in this function" in trivial case In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "muntyan at tamu dot edu" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-02/txt/msg02197.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #5 from muntyan at tamu dot edu 2007-02-19 14:07 ------- (In reply to comment #4) > I doubt this is a duplicate of Bug 22456 because the code there is dead. > It looks more like Bug 30542 and Bug 30575 which both are mentioned in Bug > 22456. These do not look like duplicates of Bug 22456 either because the code > there is not dead. It's exactly the same as Bug 30542 and Bug 30575. I'd guess it is really a duplicate of Bug 22456, and the "dead" code is indeed dead but not in the sense we think it is. A single comment from gcc developers would clarify it, something like "We are indeed aware of this serious bug and #22456 is just an umbreall bug which happened to have bogus test case" or "No, it's not a serious bug, and the code there and here is the same". Or something. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30856