From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12773 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2009 18:30:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 12574 invoked by uid 48); 16 Apr 2009 18:30:41 -0000 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:30:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090416183041.12573.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/39731] Separate warning classes for maybe-uninitialized and known-uninitialized variables. In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "scottwood at freescale dot com" 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: 2009-04/txt/msg01391.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #2 from scottwood at freescale dot com 2009-04-16 18:30 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > >The problem is that GCC does not give an error > > It can't give an error for that code as it is only runtime undefined and it > does not have to be invoked at runtime (i.e. the function is not called). > > -- Pinski > Yes, that was pointed out in the thread -- hence the request simply being a separation of warning classes. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39731