public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/18501] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Missing 'used uninitialized' warning (CCP)
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 21:32:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-18501-4-Nti2ZwxeQE@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-18501-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

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

--- Comment #51 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-06 20:48:38 UTC ---
BTW, anyone interested in fixing this may want to take a look at the newest
proposal for improving Wuninitialized in Clang:

http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2011-February/013170.html

They specifically mention the issues of GCC's implementation and how they plan
to address them. Nevertheless, there are several problems for implementing
Clang's approach in GCC. First, they prefer to have false positives (a false
warning) than false negatives (a missed correct warning), whereas GCC tries as
hard as possible to not warn when it shouldn't.  Second, their proposal makes
use of the static analysis checker build into clang, which GCC does not have
(and probably never will) in its front-ends.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-02-06 20:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <bug-18501-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-12-09 14:45 ` 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 [this message]
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
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
     [not found] <bug-18501-361@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-05-22 18:13 ` [Bug tree-optimization/18501] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-02 22:51 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-02 23:11 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot 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-Nti2ZwxeQE@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).