public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "msebor 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: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 23:53:12 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-60488-4-tumIzzKe9F@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-60488-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60488 Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last reconfirmed|2016-08-23 00:00:00 |2021-3-26 Known to fail|7.0 |11.0 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Reconfirming with GCC 11. The problem is that when the address of a variable escapes, because GCC doesn't track when, when the function from which it escapes calls another that might access the escaped variable, the warning (as a result of relying on the conservative assumptions the optimizers must make) assumes the called function initializes the variable. Another example of this is function h() below. The irony (and I'd say the bug) here is that the warning uses the same conservative assumptions to trigger in cases when an equivalent same situation might lead to the variable not having been initialized such as in g() below. These conflicting assumptions make the warning seem unpredictable. $ cat z.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall z.c void f (void); int i, *p; int g (int j) { int x; if (i) // assume i is zero x = j + 1; f (); // assume call sets i if (i) return x; // issue -Wmaybe-uninitalized return i; } int h (int j) { int x; p = &x; // address of x escapes f (); // assume call sets x return x; // avoid warning here } z.c: In function ‘g’: z.c:14:12: warning: ‘x’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] 14 | return x; // issue -Wmaybe-uninitalized | ^ z.c:7:7: note: ‘x’ was declared here 7 | int x; | ^
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-26 23:53 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2014-03-10 16:17 [Bug c/60488] New: missing -Wmaybe-uninitialized on a conditional with goto msebor at gmail dot com 2014-06-25 19:43 ` [Bug middle-end/60488] " manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-06-25 19:44 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-03-26 23:53 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2021-03-27 8:57 ` [Bug middle-end/60488] missing uninitialized warning (address taken, VOP) manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-03-29 17:43 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-03-30 16:25 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-04-06 19:59 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
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-60488-4-tumIzzKe9F@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: linkBe 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).