From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10644 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2010 14:50:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 10631 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Aug 2010 14:50:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from vinc17.pck.nerim.net (HELO prunille.vinc17.org) (213.41.242.187) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:50:34 +0000 Received: by prunille.vinc17.org (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7283153C930C; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:50:31 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:46:00 -0000 From: Vincent Lefevre To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Add uninitialized attribute? Message-ID: <20100830145031.GA26782@prunille.vinc17.org> Mail-Followup-To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Mailer-Info: http://www.vinc17.org/mutt/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20-6134-vl-r38670 (2010-08-25) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00453.txt.bz2 On 2010-08-30 14:46:57 +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > int x = x; > > is the way GCC offers this idiom since about forever, no need for an > attribute. Downthread I see that people worry about this generating an > actual (uninitialized) access to x. They are confused. This is not a good idea as "int x = x;" may really generate an (uninitialized) access to x with other compilers. -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)