public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jimfr06 at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/54544] Option -Wuninitialized does not work as documented with volatile
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 21:09:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-54544-4-X62V56hwyO@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-54544-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54544

--- Comment #4 from Zakhar <jimfr06 at gmail dot com> 2012-09-11 21:09:28 UTC ---
MORE
----

Unfortunately, I don't think the hypothesis of the uninitialized pointed memory
hold. That should prove it if we add:

/*01*/ int fct(volatile int *p);
/*02*/
/*03*/ static int
/*04*/ foo( p )
/*05*/   volatile int * p;
/*06*/ {
/*07*/   volatile int foobar,barfoo;
/*08*/   volatile int flag=0;
/*09*/   volatile int * bar;
/*10*/
/*11*/   do
/*12*/     {
/*13*/       if ( *p )
/*14*/         {
/*15*/           flag= fct( p );
/*16*/           bar = p;
/*17*/         }
/*18*/       if ( fct( p ) ) break;
/*19*/       if ( flag )
/*20*/         {
/*21*/           barfoo = *bar;
/*22*/           if ( bar == (int *)0 ) break;
/*23*/           foobar = *bar;
/*24*/           return foobar + barfoo;
/*25*/         }
/*26*/     }
/*27*/   while ( fct( p ) );
/*28*/
/*29*/   return 0;
/*30*/ }
/*31*/
/*32*/ int
/*33*/ main()
/*34*/ {
/*35*/   int i;
/*35*/
/*37*/   return foo( &i );
/*38*/
/*40*/ }

Here 'main' calls the 'foo' function with a pointer to a variable which for
sure is NOT initialized, and there is no warning whatsoever when we compile
with:

$ gcc -O3 -c uninit.c -o /dev/null -Wall

In this example, if we go to line 23, for sure the result of the returned value
is totally unpredictable as it depends on the value of 'i' in the main
function.
'i' is on the stack, and has not been initialized, so it gets any value that
was there previously on the stack!


If we remove 'static' in front of the function, this time we get our warning
back... but probably a 'false positive' on 'bar', and not related to tracking
down pointed memory.


In this new use-case, if we add 'inline' after static (which -O3 should do by
itself here?) we are for sure doing something wrong.

Shouldn't -WUninitialized output something instead of remaining silent?


      parent reply	other threads:[~2012-09-11 21:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-09-10 21:19 [Bug c/54544] New: " jimfr06 at gmail dot com
2012-09-10 21:23 ` [Bug middle-end/54544] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-10 21:33 ` jimfr06 at gmail dot com
2012-09-11 16:42 ` jimfr06 at gmail dot com
2012-09-11 21:09 ` jimfr06 at gmail dot com [this message]

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-54544-4-X62V56hwyO@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).