From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23830 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2011 20:49:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 23819 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Feb 2011 20:49:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 06 Feb 2011 20:49:51 +0000 From: "manu at gcc dot 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) X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P5 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.3.6 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 21:32:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00803.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D18501 --- Comment #51 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez 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 p= lan 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 mak= es use of the static analysis checker build into clang, which GCC does not have (and probably never will) in its front-ends.