From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id E9017385DC2E; Fri,  9 Apr 2021 10:47:30 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E9017385DC2E
From: "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/99989] [11 regression] False maybe-uninitialized
 warning breaks bootstrap on riscv64
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 10:47:30 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: build
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-99989-4-rpuJCiXHlR@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-99989-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-99989-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 10:47:31 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99989

--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.or=
g> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> I don't think we want any initialization unless we invent an explicitely
> "uninitialized" state.  Note that wide-int storage is large - I suppose
> initializing precision to zero could be done, but I'd avoid initializing
> the storage.
FWIW, I agree we shouldn't initialise unless we have a sensible value
to initialise to.  The problem is that a zero precision has no meaning,
but if we initialise to it anyway, it's an extra state that all wide_int
accessors have to assert on.=