From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25886 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2010 13:08:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 25545 invoked by uid 48); 3 Sep 2010 13:07:50 -0000 Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100903130750.25544.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: "thutt at vmware 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: 2010-09/txt/msg00439.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #21 from thutt at vmware dot com 2010-09-03 13:07 ------- (In reply to comment #8) > Is 'coverity' a compiler? I don't think so. > Coverity is not a tool that generates code, but it does perform all the syntactic & semantic analysis that a code-generating compiler will. Then, it goes beyond that with further static analysis. > Do you have actual examples of > *compilers* which, everything taken into account, decided to make sure this > case is worth warning? That's the worst argument I've read in a long time. Do we need proof that another compiler does something before the gcc team will take it up now? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42884