From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28945 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2013 18:31:37 -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 Received: (qmail 28827 invoked by uid 48); 21 Nov 2013 18:31:34 -0000 From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/19430] taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 18:31:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Version: 3.4.2 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg02215.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D19430 --- Comment #25 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez --- (In reply to Vincent Lef=C3=A8vre from comment #23) > BTW, I suppose that in this test, -Wuninitialized should be changed to > "-Wuninitialized -Wmaybe-uninitialized" in case it is decided later that > -Wuninitialized no longer enables -Wmaybe-uninitialized (see PR59223 about > that). I don't see any reason for -Wuninitialized to not enable -Wmaybe-uninitiali= zed. >>From gcc-bugs-return-435439-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Nov 21 18:44:29 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7084 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2013 18:44:29 -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 Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 6671 invoked by uid 48); 21 Nov 2013 18:44:25 -0000 From: "janus at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/59228] ICE with assume type and ASYNCHRONOUS Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 18:44:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: janus at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: keywords cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg02216.txt.bz2 Content-length: 769 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59228 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |ice-on-invalid-code CC| |janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Valery Weber from comment #0) > The following wrong code is producing an ICE with gcc version 4.9.0 20131119. > Should gcc report an error rank mismatch instead? It certainly should! The ICE happens with 4.8 and trunk, while 4.7 rejects the TYPE(*) statement (together with the rank-mismatch error), so one could regards it as a regression.