* [Bug middle-end/31279] Uninitialized warning for call-by-reference arguments with known intent(in)
[not found] <bug-31279-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2012-02-02 17:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-06-25 9:10 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-02 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31279
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2012-02-02
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-02 17:49:32 UTC ---
Confirmed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/31279] Uninitialized warning for call-by-reference arguments with known intent(in)
[not found] <bug-31279-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2012-02-02 17:49 ` [Bug middle-end/31279] Uninitialized warning for call-by-reference arguments with known intent(in) pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-06-25 9:10 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2013-08-28 8:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2013-06-25 9:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31279
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Still no warning at revision 200371.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/31279] Uninitialized warning for call-by-reference arguments with known intent(in)
[not found] <bug-31279-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2012-02-02 17:49 ` [Bug middle-end/31279] Uninitialized warning for call-by-reference arguments with known intent(in) pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-06-25 9:10 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2013-08-28 8:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-19 20:03 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-08-28 8:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31279
Bug 31279 depends on bug 31094, which changed state.
Bug 31094 Summary: Support annotating function parameters as read-only and/or non-escaping
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31094
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/31279] Uninitialized warning for call-by-reference arguments with known intent(in)
[not found] <bug-31279-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-08-28 8:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-05-19 20:03 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-25 17:49 ` [Bug fortran/31279] " msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-08-29 13:14 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-05-19 20:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31279
Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
| |a/show_bug.cgi?id=10138
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
In conjunction with attribute access (read_only) (which I presume is the moral
equivalent of INTENT(IN)), the patch I submitted for pr10138 puts in place the
infrastructure to implement this warning for FORTRAN as well. All that it
should need is mapping INTENT(IN) to the attribute.
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-May/545856.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/31279] Uninitialized warning for call-by-reference arguments with known intent(in)
[not found] <bug-31279-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2020-05-19 20:03 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-03-25 17:49 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-08-29 13:14 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-03-25 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31279
Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|middle-end |fortran
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC added the attributes mentioned in comment #4 under the name access -- see
below. Getting the middle end to issue a warning for the cases described in
comment #0 should be a matter of the Fortran front end making use of the
attribute.
$ cat x.c && gcc -S -Wall x.c
__attribute__ ((access (read_only, 1))) void f (int*);
void g (void)
{
int x;
f (&x);
}
x.c: In function ‘g’:
x.c:6:3: warning: ‘x’ is used uninitialized [-Wuninitialized]
6 | f (&x);
| ^~~~~~
x.c:1:46: note: in a call to ‘f’ declared with attribute ‘access (read_only,
1)’ here
1 | __attribute__ ((access (read_only, 1))) void f (int*);
| ^
x.c:5:7: note: ‘x’ declared here
5 | int x;
| ^
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/31279] Uninitialized warning for call-by-reference arguments with known intent(in)
[not found] <bug-31279-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2021-03-25 17:49 ` [Bug fortran/31279] " msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-08-29 13:14 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-08-29 13:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31279
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The original testcase hides everything behind array descriptors, even with
unrolling and vectorization disabled we end up with
<bb 2> [local count: 214748368]:
parm.0.data = &alist[0];
parm.0.offset = -1;
parm.0.dtype.elem_len = 4;
MEM <unsigned long> [(void *)&parm.0 + 24B] = 1103806595072;
parm.0.span = 4;
parm.0.dim[0].stride = 1;
parm.0.dim[0].lbound = 1;
parm.0.dim[0].ubound = 4;
atmp.1.data = &A.2;
atmp.1.offset = 0;
atmp.1.dtype.elem_len = 4;
MEM <unsigned long> [(void *)&atmp.1 + 24B] = 1103806595072;
atmp.1.span = 4;
atmp.1.dim[0].stride = 1;
atmp.1.dim[0].lbound = 0;
atmp.1.dim[0].ubound = 3;
_gfortran_cshift0_4 (&atmp.1, &parm.0, &C.4234, 0B);
the frontend might set the fnspec correctly to r (read-only, even transitively)
which we might use here but then the actual use is the intrinsic and the
fnspec does not say that the function acrually reads from the uninitialized
storage.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread