From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23936 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2007 19:01:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 23893 invoked by uid 48); 16 Jul 2007 19:01:07 -0000 Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:01:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070716190107.23892.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/32759] False claim of that "xyz is used uninitialized" In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "bernard at brenda-arkle dot demon dot co dot uk" 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: 2007-07/txt/msg01750.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #2 from bernard at brenda-arkle dot demon dot co dot uk 2007-07-16 19:01 ------- I have gone through this removing many repetitions of "see above for my actual bug report". Please take it as read (and see above for my actual bug report). I explicitly said that the mere confession of ignorance ("may be used uninitialized") was not a problem. The claim that 'xlimit' IS used uninitialized is false. I don't see that it is in any way justified by claiming more rather than less ignorance. The mistake is sensitive to internal rearrangement (without changed semantics) of the clauses in the 'switch' statement, and also to the presence or absence of the assignment to 'diff' following the 'switch' statement. It's hard to see in what sense ignorance about the possible values of 'ang' is affected by either feature of the code. Even if it is, the mistake is still a mistake. The offered explanation is certainly not complete, since it sheds no light on its selective appearance (well, none to my possibly poor eyesight, anyway). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32759