public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/101912] -Wmaybe-uninitialized false alarm in tzdb localtime.c
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 16:22:42 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-101912-4-AM0CnZcSLz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-101912-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101912
Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |law at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #5)
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021, eggert at cs dot ucla.edu wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101912
> >
> > --- Comment #4 from eggert at cs dot ucla.edu ---
> > (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #3)
> > > > && !(leapcnt == 0
> > > > || (prevcorr < corr
> > > > ? corr == prevcorr + 1
> > > > : (corr == prevcorr
> > > > || corr == prevcorr - 1)))))
> > > >
> > >
> > > I guess the question is whether language rules allow us to read prevcorr
> > > when leapcnt== 0?
> >
> > The C language rules do not allow that. When leapcnt is zero, behavior must be
> > as if the prevcorr expression is not evaluated.
> >
> > Although the compiler can generate machine code that evaluates prevcorr at the
> > machine level (so long as the observable behavior is the same, which is the
> > case as prevcorr is not volatile and no untoward behavior can result from
> > evaluating the prevcorr expression), it's incorrect if the compiler warns the
> > programmer that prevcorr is used uninitialized.
>
> Correct. I think we have quite some duplicates around this issue
> of making short-circuiting conditionals not short-circuiting (we do
> that even early during GENERIC folding). "Proving" that all participating
> sub-expressions are fully initialized is impossible so the only
> reasonable way to "fix" the issue (the uninit warnings) might be
> to mark the now unconditionally evaluated sub-expressions with
> -Wno-uninitialized (aka no-warning or suppress uninit warnings).
If this isn't something we are going to fix then by all means, mark them all as
-Wno-uninitialized. I'm for whatever reduces the false positive rates in this
area :).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-01 16:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-14 19:27 [Bug tree-optimization/101912] New: " eggert at cs dot ucla.edu
2021-08-16 17:07 ` [Bug tree-optimization/101912] " msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-30 15:41 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-30 16:02 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-30 16:47 ` eggert at cs dot ucla.edu
2021-12-01 7:49 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2021-12-01 16:22 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-12-25 0:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-27 12:26 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-09 10:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-09 11:19 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-09 11:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-12 13:30 ` sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-12 13:31 ` sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-26 6:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-04 9:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-04 9:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-101912-4-AM0CnZcSLz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).