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: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:09:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-18501-4-dhVbBNfsWU@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 #47 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-09 18:06:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #46)
> It still adds work to the project as a whole and serves as a distraction for
> new people who have the time to contribute.
>

The same could be said of any feature or bugfix. It depends on your priorities
and viewpoint. In fact, the way GCC development works, making a new feature
work (like a new FE) may provide the motivation for someone to fix an old bug.

> I'd almost rather they leave it as WONTFIX then just leaving it open.

How is that a solution? People will keep reporting it. As said above, it took
more than 8 years to solve some bugs, but someone came around and fixed them.
There are much older bugs than this one that may get fixed in the next couple
of releases.

WONTFIX means GCC devs don't want a fix. This is not the case here. There are
even ideas above about how to fix this. It is just that there is no enough
motivation for anyone to deal with the probably huge amount of work it
requires.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-12-09 18:09 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 [this message]
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
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-dhVbBNfsWU@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).