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 sanitizer/99945] missing maybe-uninitialized warning when using a cleanup function Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 15:23:28 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-99945-4-SDNuYn11oG@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-99945-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99945 Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill | |a/show_bug.cgi?id=99959 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I misread the report: it's actually about a false negative in all the cases where the warning isn't issued and not about it being issued with -fsanitize=undefined in the one case where it is. Mentioning the name of an artificial variable is certainly confusing, but I agree that warnings shouldn't be suppressed for it when it's created as a substitute for a real variable. That said, as the simpler test case case in pr99945 shows, warnings for the FRAME variable were apparently already (perhaps inadvertently) suppressed in r230968.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-07 15:23 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-04-06 21:28 [Bug c/99945] New: " vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net 2021-04-06 22:19 ` [Bug c/99945] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-04-07 0:01 ` vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net 2021-04-07 0:08 ` vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net 2021-04-07 0:09 ` [Bug sanitizer/99945] " msebor at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-04-07 7:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-04-07 15:23 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2023-07-11 19:02 ` [Bug sanitizer/99945] missing maybe-uninitialized warning when using nested function vs SRA pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-11 19:07 ` [Bug tree-optimization/99945] " pinskia 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-99945-4-SDNuYn11oG@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).