public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/18501] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Missing 'used uninitialized' warning (CCP)
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 23:41:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-18501-4-HWW4ufhUFE@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-18501-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501

Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Known to fail|                            |10.2.0, 11.0, 4.7.0, 4.8.4,
                   |                            |4.9.4, 5.5.0, 6.4.0, 7.2.0,
                   |                            |8.3.0, 9.1.0
   Last reconfirmed|2018-11-03 00:00:00         |2021-4-7
           See Also|https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill |
                   |a/show_bug.cgi?id=24639     |

--- Comment #95 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Reconfirmed with GCC 11.

I wonder if running CCP first, just before the early uninit pass, but only to
propagate constants and without modifying the CFG, and then the "late"
uninitialized pass to look for uninitialized operands in the PHIs while
evaluating the predicates using the CCP lattice values, would be a way to get
back the warnings without introducing false positives.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-04-07 23:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <bug-18501-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-12-09 14:45 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18501] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 " manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-09 15:26 ` tstdenis at elliptictech dot com
2010-12-09 16:07 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-09 16:35 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-09 17:04 ` tstdenis at elliptictech dot com
2010-12-09 18:09 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-10  0:09 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-10  1:25 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-06 20:40 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-06 21:32 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-06-27 12:49 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18501] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-06-27 16:38 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18501] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 " manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-04  8:44 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-13 13:18 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18501] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-02 13:02 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18501] [4.6/4.7/4.8 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-24 22:06 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-24 22:17 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-24 23:52 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-24 23:58 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-04-12 15:15 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18501] [4.7/4.8/4.9 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-04-15 18:47 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-16 13:12 ` jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com
2014-03-13 18:00 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-13 18:03 ` tstdenis at elliptictech dot com
2014-06-12 13:42 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18501] [4.7/4.8/4.9/4.10 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-12-19 13:35 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18501] [4.8/4.9/5 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-23  8:16 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18501] [4.8/4.9/5/6 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:04 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18501] [4.9/5/6 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-07-29 15:58 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18501] [8/9/10/11 " manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-07 23:41 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2021-04-15 23:05 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-05-14  9:45 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18501] [9/10/11/12 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-01  8:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-27  9:33 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18501] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-28 10:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-07 10:28 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18501] [11/12/13/14 " 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-18501-4-HWW4ufhUFE@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).