From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 903 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2010 14:13:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 804 invoked by uid 48); 27 Jan 2010 14:13:23 -0000 Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:13:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100127141323.803.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c/42884] GCC (v4.3.3) fails to detect uninitialized variable In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "paolo dot carlini at oracle 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: 2010-01/txt/msg03085.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-27 14:13 ------- I'm restating my point: indeed, the variable can be used uninitialized. This is not at issue. My point is that, depending on the way the compiler is internally organized, etc, you can have it warning for a larger class of cases and not warning for a larger class of non-cases, but normally you cannot obtain full accuracy. As two data points, for comparison, I told you that two other, up to date, high quality, compilers don't warn either. I'm saying, do not hold your breath on this, in principle we can, and should, make progress, but it's hard to say now how much and when. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42884