public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/99945] New: missing maybe-uninitialized warning when using a cleanup function Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 21:28:17 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-99945-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99945 Bug ID: 99945 Summary: missing maybe-uninitialized warning when using a cleanup function Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net Target Milestone: --- Consider the following testcase: int foo1 (void); int foo2 (int); #ifdef D #define N #else #define N ! #endif int bar (void) { int i; auto void cf (int *t) { foo2 (i); } int t __attribute__ ((cleanup (cf))); t = 0; if (foo1 ()) i = foo1 (); i = N foo1 () || i; foo2 (i); return 0; } With a GCC snapshot built a few hours ago from the master branch on x86_64: cventin% gcc --version gcc (GCC) 11.0.1 20210406 (experimental) cventin% gcc -Werror=maybe-uninitialized -O2 -c file.c cventin% gcc -Werror=maybe-uninitialized -O2 -c file.c -DD cventin% gcc -Werror=maybe-uninitialized -O2 -c file.c -fsanitize=undefined cventin% gcc -Werror=maybe-uninitialized -O2 -c file.c -fsanitize=undefined -DD file.c: In function ‘bar’: file.c:21:17: error: ‘FRAME.1.i’ may be used uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized] 21 | i = N foo1 () || i; | ~~~~~~~~^~~~ file.c:10:5: note: ‘FRAME.1’ declared here 10 | int bar (void) | ^~~ cc1: some warnings being treated as errors Except in the last case, the warning is missing, though -fsanitize=undefined should have no influence, and whether one does "! foo1 ()" or "foo1 ()" should have no effects either.
next reply other threads:[~2021-04-06 21:28 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-04-06 21:28 vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net [this message] 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 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@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).