From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-406390-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 15371 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2012 20:07:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 15260 invoked by uid 48); 12 Nov 2012 20:07:31 -0000
From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/55288] Improve handling/suppression of maybe-uninitialized warnings
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:07:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
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-Changed-Fields: Status Last reconfirmed CC Ever Confirmed
Message-ID: <bug-55288-4-HUqyBD7FKa@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55288-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55288-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg01052.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D55288

Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2012-11-12
                 CC|                            |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez <manu at gcc dot gnu=
.org> 2012-11-12 20:07:31 UTC ---
Why don't just initialize the variable? It seems simpler than implementing =
yet
another special attribute in GCC.

That said, I find strange that the warning points to somewhere within a
function without telling the user where from that function was called. For =
more
complex testcases, this could turn out to be very confusing. Also, the loca=
tion
is not actually pointing to the variable but to ';'.

Clang says:

pr55288.cc:40:9: warning: variable 'q' may be uninitialized when used here
[-Wconditional-uninitialized]
    foo(q);
        ^
pr55288.cc:22:8: note: initialize the variable 'q' to silence this warning
  int q;
       ^
        =3D 0