From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5469 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2014 14:52:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5433 invoked by uid 48); 3 Dec 2014 14:52:40 -0000 From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/63660] -Wmaybe-uninitialized false positive (uninit pass limits) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 14:52:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal 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-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg00369.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D63660 --- Comment #3 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez --- (In reply to Edward-san from comment #2) > Isn't it possible to bailout if the limit is reached? I guess the analysis is trying to prove that the variable is indeed initial= ized (or that it is never used uninitialized). It bails out trying to prove that, thus the warning. The warning code could be conservative and never warn if = the limit is reached, but then we will have the other problem: false-negatives. A way to advance with this (if you want to help) is to check which limit is actually hit by your code. Then see by how much you would need to change the limit to warn (by for example adding a --param to control it). Then, with t= his information at hand, the GCC maintainers can decide whether to increase the limit a bit or perhaps to never warn if the limit is hit (people that want = all potential warnings not matter the compile-time cost can use the --param for= a deeper analysis). >>From gcc-bugs-return-469363-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Dec 03 14:55:19 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7847 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2014 14:55:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7774 invoked by uid 48); 3 Dec 2014 14:55:15 -0000 From: "dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug jit/64166] New: JIT does not provide a way for verifying dumpfiles from testcases Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 14:55:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: jit X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter blocked Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg00370.txt.bz2 Content-length: 768 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64166 Bug ID: 64166 Summary: JIT does not provide a way for verifying dumpfiles from testcases Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: jit Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org Blocks: 64020 In PR jit/64020 I found that there isn't currently a good way for a jit testcase to get at a specific dumpfile and to assert properties about it (e.g. that a particular string or regex is found). I'm opening this bug to track this. I'm not yet sure to what extent to expose this in the API to end-users.