From: Zack Weinberg <zack@rabi.columbia.edu>
To: egcs@egcs.cygnus.com
Subject: added: tests for uninit variable warnings
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 16:11:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <199903120010.TAA03507@blastula.phys.columbia.edu> (raw)
I've added to the testsuite the files gcc.dg/uninit-[1234].c. These
are tests for spurious uninitialized variable warnings. uninit-1.c
and uninit-3.c are understandable weaknesses in data flow analysis.
uninit-2.c is slightly less understandable. It ought to recognize
that rest_args cannot be nonzero on the first trip through the loop.
uninit-4.c is bizarre: the warning goes away if you remove the '1'
case, or if you replace 'struct operation' by an int, or even if you
make 'struct operation' smaller! Also, if you take out the default
case _and_ the '1' case, the warning goes away, but it shouldn't (what
if cpp_lex returns 3?)
The tests are marked XFAIL - all systems. I'm interested to know if
they pass on anyone's machine.
Note that any improvements that lead to uninit-[123] passing will
probably also lead to better loop optimization.
zw
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Zack Weinberg <zack@rabi.columbia.edu>
To: egcs@egcs.cygnus.com
Subject: added: tests for uninit variable warnings
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:46:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <199903120010.TAA03507@blastula.phys.columbia.edu> (raw)
Message-ID: <19990331234600.uiHUXx2Ttj6OE3JYkpgAoMgqa6jF-VCXcR4gljGCqGE@z> (raw)
I've added to the testsuite the files gcc.dg/uninit-[1234].c. These
are tests for spurious uninitialized variable warnings. uninit-1.c
and uninit-3.c are understandable weaknesses in data flow analysis.
uninit-2.c is slightly less understandable. It ought to recognize
that rest_args cannot be nonzero on the first trip through the loop.
uninit-4.c is bizarre: the warning goes away if you remove the '1'
case, or if you replace 'struct operation' by an int, or even if you
make 'struct operation' smaller! Also, if you take out the default
case _and_ the '1' case, the warning goes away, but it shouldn't (what
if cpp_lex returns 3?)
The tests are marked XFAIL - all systems. I'm interested to know if
they pass on anyone's machine.
Note that any improvements that lead to uninit-[123] passing will
probably also lead to better loop optimization.
zw
next reply other threads:[~1999-03-11 16:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-03-11 16:11 Zack Weinberg [this message]
[not found] ` < 199903120010.TAA03507@blastula.phys.columbia.edu >
1999-03-11 16:42 ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-03-31 23:46 ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-03-31 23:46 ` Zack Weinberg
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=199903120010.TAA03507@blastula.phys.columbia.edu \
--to=zack@rabi.columbia.edu \
--cc=egcs@egcs.cygnus.com \
/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: link
Be 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).