From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32618 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2002 21:06:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 32602 invoked by uid 71); 1 Jul 2002 21:06:04 -0000 Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020701210604.32601.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "Eric Botcazou" Subject: Re: c/7153: bad operands for 'movsbl' error Reply-To: "Eric Botcazou" X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00018.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/7153; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Eric Botcazou" To: "Ben Liblit" Cc: Subject: Re: c/7153: bad operands for 'movsbl' error Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 23:05:19 +0200 > Do we still want to consider that implicit expectation to be a gcc bug? > I'd say yes. If the optimizer genuinely *cannot* be made to work with > uninitialized data, then it should emit an error message (not just a > warning) and refuse to continue. > Generating bogus assembly code is a poor diagnostic. Why ? ;-) I posted a (not yet reviewed) patch against the 3.1 codebase: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-06/msg02298.html -- Eric Botcazou ebotcazou@multimania.com