From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 15C723858D28; Wed,  1 Dec 2021 07:49:16 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 15C723858D28
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <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 07:49:15 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-101912-4-rXmyE3jCXR@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-101912-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-101912-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 07:49:16 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101912

--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021, eggert at cs dot ucla.edu wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101912
>=20
> --- Comment #4 from eggert at cs dot ucla.edu ---
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #3)
> > >               && !(leapcnt =3D=3D 0
> > >                    || (prevcorr < corr
> > >                        ? corr =3D=3D prevcorr + 1
> > >                        : (corr =3D=3D prevcorr
> > >                           || corr =3D=3D prevcorr - 1)))))
> > >=20
> >=20
> > I guess the question is whether language rules allow us to read prevcorr
> > when leapcnt=3D=3D 0?
>=20
> The C language rules do not allow that. When leapcnt is zero, behavior mu=
st be
> as if the prevcorr expression is not evaluated.
>=20
> Although the compiler can generate machine code that evaluates prevcorr a=
t the
> machine level (so long as the observable behavior is the same, which is t=
he
> 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).=