public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/105534] -Wmaybe-uninitialized cases shouldn't suppress -Wuninitialized warnings Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 13:21:59 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-105534-4-nqjoxrCG4c@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-105534-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105534 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Note there's _2 = value_1(D) * x_2; where _2 might be effectively uninitialized iff x_2 is not zero. When x_2 is zero then _2 has a well-defined value. So to start thinking about this I'd do a RPO walk recording a lattice of { UNDEF, MAY_UNDEF, DEF } where the above would be "MAY_UNDEF". PHIs would then simply merge. That would be enough to better distinguish may from must in case the must diagnostic is OK for the two different variables being returned. Otherwise that needs to be taken into account as well, maybe by tracking which variables a value is from. Consider void test (int x) { int value1, value2; return (value1 * x) + value2; } where we maybe use value1 uninitialized and definitely value2. Note this all leaves open which point to diagnose - the expression closest to the (possibly conditional and possible multiple) computations with value1 and value2 or the expression where the first (or last?) unconditional use appears in?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-09 13:21 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-05-09 12:22 [Bug c++/105534] New: -Wmaybe-uninitialized " redbeard0531 at gmail dot com 2022-05-09 13:05 ` [Bug c++/105534] -Wmaybe-uninitialized cases " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-05-09 13:21 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2022-05-09 13:41 ` redbeard0531 at gmail dot com 2022-05-09 13:51 ` redbeard0531 at gmail dot com
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-105534-4-nqjoxrCG4c@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: linkBe 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).