public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c/44042] New: [4.4, 4.5,4.6 Regression] Missing warning for unitialized varaible in switch statement
@ 2010-05-08 14:58 tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-08 14:59 ` [Bug c/44042] " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 more replies)
0 siblings, 6 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-08 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
ig25@linux-fd1f:/tmp> cat haha.c
int f(n)
{
int r;
switch(n)
{
case 1:
r = 3;
}
return r;
}
ig25@linux-fd1f:/tmp> gcc -O3 -c -Wall haha.c
ig25@linux-fd1f:/tmp> gcc -v
Es werden eingebaute Spezifikationen verwendet.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/ig25/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.6.0/lto-wrapper
Ziel: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Konfiguriert mit: ../fortran-dev/configure --prefix=/home/ig25
--enable-languages=all,ada --with-mpc=/usr/local
Thread-Modell: posix
gcc-Version 4.6.0 20100430 (experimental) (GCC)
ig25@linux-fd1f:/tmp> gcc-3.3 -O3 -c -Wall haha.c
haha.c: In function `f':
haha.c:3: warning: `r' might be used uninitialized in this function
Also fails for 4.4 and 4.5.
--
Summary: [4.4, 4.5,4.6 Regression] Missing warning for
unitialized varaible in switch statement
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44042
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/44042] [4.4, 4.5,4.6 Regression] Missing warning for unitialized varaible in switch statement
2010-05-08 14:58 [Bug c/44042] New: [4.4, 4.5,4.6 Regression] Missing warning for unitialized varaible in switch statement tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-08 14:59 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-08 15:00 ` [Bug c/44042] [4.4/4.5/4.6 " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-08 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to fail| |4.4.1 4.5.0 4.6.0
Known to work| |3.3.3
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44042
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/44042] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Missing warning for unitialized varaible in switch statement
2010-05-08 14:58 [Bug c/44042] New: [4.4, 4.5,4.6 Regression] Missing warning for unitialized varaible in switch statement tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-08 14:59 ` [Bug c/44042] " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-08 15:00 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-08 15:33 ` [Bug c/44042] [4.1/4.2/4.4/4.5/4.6 " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-08 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-08 15:00 -------
Adjusting subject to make this show up on the
regression list...
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[4.4, 4.5,4.6 Regression] |[4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression]
|Missing warning for |Missing warning for
|unitialized varaible in |unitialized varaible in
|switch statement |switch statement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44042
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/44042] [4.1/4.2/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Missing warning for unitialized varaible in switch statement
2010-05-08 14:58 [Bug c/44042] New: [4.4, 4.5,4.6 Regression] Missing warning for unitialized varaible in switch statement tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-08 14:59 ` [Bug c/44042] " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-08 15:00 ` [Bug c/44042] [4.4/4.5/4.6 " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-08 15:33 ` hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2010-05-08 16:39 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com @ 2010-05-08 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-05-08 15:33 -------
It failed with gcc 4.1 and 4.2. I think 4.3 is the same.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail|4.4.1 4.5.0 4.6.0 |4.1.2 4.2.4 4.4.1 4.5.0
| |4.6.0
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-05-08 15:33:14
date| |
Summary|[4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] |[4.1/4.2/4.4/4.5/4.6
|Missing warning for |Regression] Missing warning
|unitialized varaible in |for unitialized varaible in
|switch statement |switch statement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44042
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/44042] [4.1/4.2/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Missing warning for unitialized varaible in switch statement
2010-05-08 14:58 [Bug c/44042] New: [4.4, 4.5,4.6 Regression] Missing warning for unitialized varaible in switch statement tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-08 15:33 ` [Bug c/44042] [4.1/4.2/4.4/4.5/4.6 " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
@ 2010-05-08 16:39 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-09 11:12 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-09 11:13 ` rguenther at suse dot de
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-08 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-08 16:39 -------
That's the usual CCP exploits undefined behavior bug. There's a bug ...
somewhere. WONTFIX.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WONTFIX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44042
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/44042] [4.1/4.2/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Missing warning for unitialized varaible in switch statement
2010-05-08 14:58 [Bug c/44042] New: [4.4, 4.5,4.6 Regression] Missing warning for unitialized varaible in switch statement tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-08 16:39 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-09 11:12 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-09 11:13 ` rguenther at suse dot de
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-09 11:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-09 11:12 -------
Sorry, I cannot parse "CCP exploits undefined behavior".
Why should there be no warning for this, when this warning
was present in gcc 3.x?
--
tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44042
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/44042] [4.1/4.2/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Missing warning for unitialized varaible in switch statement
2010-05-08 14:58 [Bug c/44042] New: [4.4, 4.5,4.6 Regression] Missing warning for unitialized varaible in switch statement tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-09 11:12 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-09 11:13 ` rguenther at suse dot de
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2010-05-09 11:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-05-09 11:13 -------
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Missing warning
for unitialized varaible in switch statement
On Sun, 9 May 2010, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-09 11:12 -------
> Sorry, I cannot parse "CCP exploits undefined behavior".
>
> Why should there be no warning for this, when this warning
> was present in gcc 3.x?
because we optimize better now and the code has vanished before
we get a chance to emit the warning
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44042
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-05-09 11:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-05-08 14:58 [Bug c/44042] New: [4.4, 4.5,4.6 Regression] Missing warning for unitialized varaible in switch statement tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-08 14:59 ` [Bug c/44042] " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-08 15:00 ` [Bug c/44042] [4.4/4.5/4.6 " tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-08 15:33 ` [Bug c/44042] [4.1/4.2/4.4/4.5/4.6 " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2010-05-08 16:39 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-09 11:12 ` tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-09 11:13 ` rguenther at suse dot de
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).