public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "redi 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: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 01:25:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-18501-4-zTB723WiuM@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 #49 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-10 01:24:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #46)
>
> If fixing known bugs is not a priority then of what value is this project other
> than being free? I thought the whole point was to also be correct. Granted
> this isn't a show-stopper as far as bugs go, but the laissez-faire "if you hate
> it fix it yourself" trend in OSS is really annoying.
So is the trend of users who leave snarky "just saying" comments claiming
things "can't be done right." GCC is not a static analysis tool, it will never
be as good at some things as some other tools - that doesn't make it useless or
incorrect. Imperfect, yes, and noone disputes that.
Fixing bugs is a priority, just look on the mailing lists to see how many are
fixed. Search for Manu's comments to see how hard he works (in his own time)
trying to fix longstanding bugs such as this, or at least try to improve the
situation slightly, or just identify duplicate reports.
But not all bugs are equal. To generalise from the fact that one particularly
difficult bug hasn't been fixed to claim that fixing known bugs is not a
priority, and to question the value of the entire project, just makes you sound
ridiculous.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-10 1:25 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 [this message]
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-zTB723WiuM@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).