From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 3A4743858023; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 16:25:05 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3A4743858023
From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/60488] missing uninitialized warning (address taken, 
 VOP)
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 16:25:04 +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: 4.8.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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: <bug-60488-4-KkHG0KwLYG@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-60488-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-60488-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 16:25:05 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D60488

--- Comment #9 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez <manu at gcc dot gnu=
.org> ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #8)
> You're right, the test cases aren't equivalent, or meant to be.  What I w=
ant
> to highlight is that in the test case in comment #6, in g() and other
> similar ones like it the warning is most likely going to be a false
> positive, while in h(), not warning most likely a false negative.  Both of
> these "problems" are due to the same underlying assumption: that a variab=
le
> whose address escapes may be modified by a subsequent call to an unknown
> function.

Sure, but that assumption is not the problem in this PR, since assuming one
thing or the other only matters for distinguishing between "is" and "may be=
",
but a warning should have been given and it is not given.=