public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c/39731] New: Separate warning classes for maybe-uninitialized and known-uninitialized variables.
@ 2009-04-10 21:52 scottwood at freescale dot com
2009-04-16 18:28 ` [Bug middle-end/39731] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-16 18:30 ` scottwood at freescale dot com
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: scottwood at freescale dot com @ 2009-04-10 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
It would be nice to provide separate -W flags for the "is used uninitialized"
and "may be used uninitialized" variants of -Wuninitialized. The former is
always a problem, while the latter is often noise.
See this thread:
http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2009-April/070540.html
--
Summary: Separate warning classes for maybe-uninitialized and
known-uninitialized variables.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: scottwood at freescale dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39731
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/39731] Separate warning classes for maybe-uninitialized and known-uninitialized variables. 2009-04-10 21:52 [Bug c/39731] New: Separate warning classes for maybe-uninitialized and known-uninitialized variables scottwood at freescale dot com @ 2009-04-16 18:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-16 18:30 ` scottwood at freescale dot com 1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-04-16 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs ------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-16 18:28 ------- >The problem is that GCC does not give an error It can't give an error for that code as it is only runtime undefined and it does not have to be invoked at runtime (i.e. the function is not called). -- Pinski -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39731 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/39731] Separate warning classes for maybe-uninitialized and known-uninitialized variables. 2009-04-10 21:52 [Bug c/39731] New: Separate warning classes for maybe-uninitialized and known-uninitialized variables scottwood at freescale dot com 2009-04-16 18:28 ` [Bug middle-end/39731] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-04-16 18:30 ` scottwood at freescale dot com 1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: scottwood at freescale dot com @ 2009-04-16 18:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-bugs ------- Comment #2 from scottwood at freescale dot com 2009-04-16 18:30 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > >The problem is that GCC does not give an error > > It can't give an error for that code as it is only runtime undefined and it > does not have to be invoked at runtime (i.e. the function is not called). > > -- Pinski > Yes, that was pointed out in the thread -- hence the request simply being a separation of warning classes. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39731 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-04-16 18:30 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2009-04-10 21:52 [Bug c/39731] New: Separate warning classes for maybe-uninitialized and known-uninitialized variables scottwood at freescale dot com 2009-04-16 18:28 ` [Bug middle-end/39731] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-16 18:30 ` scottwood at freescale dot com
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).