public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/94905] [10/11 Regression] Bogus warning -Werror=maybe-uninitialized
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 09:39:33 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-94905-4-lPrALd6uu0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-94905-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94905

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |needs-bisection

--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14)
> > 
> > and the partial uninitialized read from it is not what the uninit pass can
> > diagnose (it's memory walking stops at the first may-def, it does not
> > prune must-def ranges).  But even with -fno-tree-loop-distribute-patterns
> > -fno-tree-vectorize where we get similar IL as with GCC 11 we do not warn so
> > I wonder
> > what fixed it on trunk (when you add those options).
> 
> It was fixed with r11-3659-gac1c65ad1a16d83e.

But the original testcase still warns on the branch but not trunk, so that
cannot be it.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-04-07  9:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-01 16:25 [Bug c++/94905] New: " bug-apl at gnu dot org
2020-05-01 22:41 ` [Bug c++/94905] " glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-03 13:28 ` bug-apl at gnu dot org
2020-05-03 15:02 ` asolokha at gmx dot com
2020-05-03 16:10 ` bug-apl at gnu dot org
2020-05-03 16:16 ` bug-apl at gnu dot org
2020-05-03 16:26 ` asolokha at gmx dot com
2020-07-02 15:47 ` moller at mollerware dot com
2020-07-02 15:51 ` moller at mollerware dot com
2020-09-03 18:34 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-03 18:46 ` [Bug c++/94905] [10 Regression] " manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-08 16:34 ` [Bug tree-optimization/94905] [10/11 " jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-21 13:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-21 13:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-21 13:43 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-31 14:50 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-07  9:39 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-04-07 10:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-28 10:40 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-07 10:37 ` [Bug tree-optimization/94905] [11 " rguenth 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-94905-4-lPrALd6uu0@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: link
Be 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).