* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2005-10-12 0:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-31 4:07 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (22 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-12 0:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-12 00:21 -------
I think this is a dup of bug 18501.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-12 0:21 ` [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-31 4:07 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-28 20:40 ` [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1/4.2 " mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (21 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-31 4:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 04:07 -------
This will never be release-critical.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P2 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1/4.2 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-12 0:21 ` [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-31 4:07 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-28 20:40 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-05-25 2:45 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-28 20:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1/4.2 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-28 20:40 ` [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1/4.2 " mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-05-25 2:45 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-22 17:27 ` [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1/4.2/4.3 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-05-25 2:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-25 02:36 -------
Will not be fixed in 4.1.1; adjust target milestone to 4.1.2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.1.1 |4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2006-05-25 2:45 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-01-22 17:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-28 19:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-01-22 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 17:27 -------
*** Bug 30542 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |david dot cuthbert at gmail
| |dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2007-01-22 17:27 ` [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1/4.2/4.3 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-01-28 19:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-28 20:15 ` muntyan at tamu dot edu
` (17 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-01-28 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-28 19:29 -------
*** Bug 30575 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |muntyan at tamu dot edu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2007-01-28 19:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-01-28 20:15 ` muntyan at tamu dot edu
2007-02-14 9:34 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: muntyan at tamu dot edu @ 2007-01-28 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from muntyan at tamu dot edu 2007-01-28 20:15 -------
Is the code here or in comment #2 the same as in 30542 and 30575? It may be,
but gcc users who don't know gcc internals (like me), can't easily see this,
and missing warning (in those two bugs, not here) is quite a serious
regression, which means one can expect more warnings to disappear.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2007-01-28 20:15 ` muntyan at tamu dot edu
@ 2007-02-14 9:34 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-19 10:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-02-14 9:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-14 9:34 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-02-19 10:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-19 18:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-02-19 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 10:12 -------
*** Bug 30856 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |christoph dot mallon at gmx
| |dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-19 10:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-02-19 18:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-04-11 21:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-02-19 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 18:44 -------
*** Bug 30856 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-19 18:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-04-11 21:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-04-11 21:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-04-11 21:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-11 22:17 -------
Actually 22456 is CCP ignoring uninitialized vars on phi merging. Testcase:
int foo(int f)
{
int i;
if (f)
i = 5;
return i;
}
CCP makes it return 5, so the set of i and the PHI becomes dead. Before CCP
we have:
<bb 2>:
if (f_2(D) != 0) goto <L0>; else goto <L1>;
<L0>:;
i_4 = 5;
# i_1 = PHI <i_3(D)(2), i_4(3)>
<L1>:;
i_5 = i_1;
while CCP transforms it to
<bb 2>:
if (f_2(D) != 0) goto <L0>; else goto <L1>;
<L0>:;
i_4 = 5;
# i_1 = PHI <i_3(D)(2), 5(3)>
<L1>:;
i_5 = 5;
and the next DCE pass removes all but a return 5;
This can be fixed by making CCP not use undefined behavior.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2007-04-11 21:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-04-11 21:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-08-15 15:02 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-04-11 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-11 22:24 -------
Created an attachment (id=13354)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13354&action=view)
patch to preserve uninitialized PHI arguments in CCP
like so. -O -Wall gives
t.i: In function 'foo':
t.i:3: warning: 'i' may be used uninitialized in this function
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2007-04-11 21:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-08-15 15:02 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-08-15 15:05 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-08-15 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-15 15:02 -------
(In reply to comment #12)
> Created an attachment (id=13354)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13354&action=view) [edit]
> patch to preserve uninitialized PHI arguments in CCP
>
> like so. -O -Wall gives
>
> t.i: In function 'foo':
> t.i:3: warning: 'i' may be used uninitialized in this function
>
I don't think we want to do this, since it works fine in a lot of testcases
that will get hindered. See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00028.html
As far as I see this is a duplicate of PR18501.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2007-08-15 15:02 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-08-15 15:05 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-08-16 15:22 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-08-15 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-15 15:05 -------
Diego, I think this is caused by CCP silently merging UNDEFINED PHI nodes. We
could group similar cases into PR18501, don't you think?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dnovillo at google dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2007-08-15 15:05 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-08-16 15:22 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-07-04 19:58 ` [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.2/4.3/4.4 " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-08-16 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-16 15:22 -------
If not an exact duplicate, it's strongly related to 18501. The code pattern is
slightly different so it may be worth keeping around. Adding a dependency on
18501.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn| |18501
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2007-08-16 15:22 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-07-04 19:58 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-07 15:35 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-07-04 19:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-04 19:57 -------
Closing 4.1 branch.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[4.1/4.2/4.3/4.4 regression]|[4.2/4.3/4.4 regression]
|missing "is used |missing "is used
|uninitialized" warning |uninitialized" warning
Target Milestone|4.1.3 |4.2.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2008-07-04 19:58 ` [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.2/4.3/4.4 " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-02-07 15:35 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-07 20:35 ` muntyan at tamu dot edu
` (6 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-02-07 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #17 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-07 15:35 -------
Without optimization we build the following:
foo ()
{
intD.0 iD.1591;
# BLOCK 2
# PRED: ENTRY (fallthru)
[pr22456.c : 4] goto <bb 4>;
# SUCC: 4 (fallthru)
# BLOCK 3
# PRED: 4 (true)
[pr22456.c : 4] iD.1591_3 = iD.1591_1 + 1;
# SUCC: 4 (fallthru)
# BLOCK 4
# PRED: 2 (fallthru) 3 (fallthru)
# iD.1591_1 = PHI <iD.1591_2(D)(2), iD.1591_3(3)>
[pr22456.c : 4] if (iD.1591_1 != 0)
goto <bb 3>;
else
goto <bb 5>;
# SUCC: 3 (true) 5 (false)
# BLOCK 5
# PRED: 4 (false)
[pr22456.c : 5] return;
# SUCC: EXIT
}
Because of the way the loop is represented, we generate a PHI node for the
condition instead of a direct use. Since we do not warn about PHI nodes without
optimization, then there is no warning.
With optimization the loop is completely removed since it doesn't do anything.
Hence, there is no warning. I wasn't able to construct a testcase where the
loop does anything useful (or the value of "i" is used after the loop) and we
do not warn.
This doesn't have anything to do with CCP and it is not a duplicate of bug
18501.
Closed as INVALID. If anyone comes up with a testcase for this where the loop
is not empty, open a new PR and add me to the CC.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn|18501 |
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-07 15:35 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-02-07 20:35 ` muntyan at tamu dot edu
2009-02-07 20:59 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: muntyan at tamu dot edu @ 2009-02-07 20:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #18 from muntyan at tamu dot edu 2009-02-07 20:35 -------
There were couple of bugs with real C code where warnings are actually useful -
see comment #2, and they were closed as a dup of this one. This one may or may
not be important, but the warning did go for good, in valid cases (that is, in
invalid but real program code). I would open a new entry as you say, but I
don't think it makes sense - I already have opened one (closed as a dup), and I
wasn't alone in that. I'll reopen #30575 because I can't reopen this one.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-07 20:35 ` muntyan at tamu dot edu
@ 2009-02-07 20:59 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-07 21:33 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-02-07 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #19 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-07 20:58 -------
(In reply to comment #18)
> There were couple of bugs with real C code where warnings are actually useful -
Yes please. reopen what those that you feel are still valid and add me to the
CC list.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-07 20:59 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-02-07 21:33 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-17 11:47 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-02-07 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #20 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-07 21:33 -------
(In reply to comment #19)
> (In reply to comment #18)
> > There were couple of bugs with real C code where warnings are actually useful -
>
> Yes please. reopen what those that you feel are still valid and add me to the
> CC list.
>
I have reviewed all of them already and reclassified. If you have more doubts,
please read http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Better_Uninitialized_Warnings and then ask.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-07 21:33 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-06-17 11:47 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-06-17 12:00 ` [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] (for empty loop) " manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-06-17 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #21 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-17 11:47 -------
*** Bug 40469 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] (for empty loop) missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-17 11:47 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-06-17 12:00 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-12 21:57 ` reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-13 6:44 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-06-17 12:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #22 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-17 12:00 -------
This bug is about not warning for an empty loop (the empty loop is removed and
there is no warning). Since we don't care (enough to find a fix) about this
case, this bug is considered INVALID.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] |[4.2/4.3/4.4 regression]
|missing "is used |(for empty loop) missing "is
|uninitialized" warning |used uninitialized" warning
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] (for empty loop) missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2009-06-17 12:00 ` [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] (for empty loop) " manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-07-12 21:57 ` reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-13 6:44 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-07-12 21:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #23 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-12 21:57 -------
Btw, since a couple of days the warning is back :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/22456] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] (for empty loop) missing "is used uninitialized" warning
[not found] <bug-22456-1771@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-12 21:57 ` reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-07-13 6:44 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
23 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-07-13 6:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #24 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-13 06:44 -------
(In reply to comment #23)
> Btw, since a couple of days the warning is back :-)
That probably means a regression in the optimizers. Can you identify the
revision?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread