From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12141 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2010 14:28:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 11855 invoked by uid 48); 27 Jan 2010 14:28:03 -0000 Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:28:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100127142803.11854.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: "tstdenis at elliptictech 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/msg03087.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #7 from tstdenis at elliptictech dot com 2010-01-27 14:28 ------- (In reply to comment #6) > 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. I take your point about false warnings, but if something like coverity can correctly identify this, it is possible. I wouldn't expect this to be fixed overnight, but part of the point is to at least report these things so developers know about them. -- tstdenis at elliptictech dot com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|4.3.3 |unknown http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42884