From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11981 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2010 17:55:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 11896 invoked by uid 48); 27 Jan 2010 17:55:26 -0000 Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:55:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100127175526.11895.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/msg03123.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #17 from tstdenis at elliptictech dot com 2010-01-27 17:55 ------- (In reply to comment #16) > No, it's an implementation detail. Uninitialized variable use tracking > works with detecting uses of SSA name default definitions. Memory > is not in SSA form so this mechanism does not work. > > Uninitialized memory detection is not done at all. > Forgive me for I know not much of the GCC internals (I use GCC, I don't develop it), but are you saying that any use of address-of on a variable kicks it out of contention for unused tracking? Even if it's not on a direct path (e.g., not always executed)? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42884