From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id F36423853819; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 13:13:30 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F36423853819 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1661865210; bh=H8UJbNJKDHKYoqITcusyonGkm4k4bGqO+yUZi3XRRpQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=T/Z3+Io3BcgEaldZhNwbJk26e13m9uE/yRvCRzrhYx7jSbIScKMP2E0q76nE4XyX1 sNVsDGhE8j1UYHvm6nZ6lzxrcq5zhcgwcztG1vuoAtQYbP9hSAIG86iR45uffAvibV Sp0M1NldOLWrXK+ekR6/pWAEpOOlYhs+kFBCzrrQ= From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/73550] Another wrong -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning in switch statement Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 13:13:30 +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: 7.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth 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: cc 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 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D73550 Richard Biener changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- Note the main issue is that we don't handle the case where an edge from a switch reaches a case with more than a single case value. There's a representational issue here in the predicate analysis code - one would think that amending it with a new "kind" implementing a falls-in-range operation and recording an irange (but conservative precise or lose depending on who is asking, so may= be better "exact") would be a good fix, possibly also handling range checking = in general this way.=