https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63446
Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2014-10-03
CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> In an ideal world gcc would warn about the last line of make_foo() instead
> of func(), and it would mention a dangling reference instead of an
> uninitialized use.
Hum, yes, but I'm not even sure if GCC realizes that there is a dangling
reference. However, it should since the code looks like:
foo make_foo() ()
Eh tree:
1 cleanup
2 cleanup
{
intD.9 & SR.1D.2273;
intD.9 xD.2244;
struct fooD.2226 D.2254;
struct fooD.2226 D.2260;
;; basic block 2, loop depth 0, count 0, freq 10000, maybe hot
;; prev block 0, next block 1, flags: (NEW, REACHABLE)
;; pred: ENTRY (FALLTHRU,EXECUTABLE)
;; starting at line 10
[test.c : 10:11] # .MEM_2 = VDEF <.MEM_1(D)>
xD.2244 = 42;
[test.c : 11:15] # .MEM_4 = VDEF <.MEM_2>
[test.c : 11] MEM[(struct fooD.2226 *)&D.2260] = &xD.2244;
# .MEM_6 = VDEF <.MEM_4>
xD.2244 ={v} {CLOBBER};
[test.c : 11:15] # VUSE <.MEM_6>
return D.2260;
;; succ: EXIT (EXECUTABLE)
}
which is just before x = 42 is removed. But for the same reason that it is
removed, perhaps also the dangling reference could be detected.
