From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10940 invoked by alias); 8 May 2003 23:16:00 -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 10920 invoked by uid 71); 8 May 2003 23:16:00 -0000 Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 23:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030508231600.10919.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: c++/5802 Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00670.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/5802; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: c++/5802 Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 18:08:26 -0500 (CDT) Still present on yesterday's mainline. I'm pretty sure the bug has to do with gcc's knowledge that the && operator can be short-cut: if the first part yields false, then the second part isn't evaluated any more, so dptr isn't initialized. However, in that case we would end up in the other branch of the if, in which we don't use dptr, so the warning is useless there. W. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/