https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78394
--- Comment #15 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #14) > (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #12) > > Whether or not to fix as well as whether or not to warn at -O0 are a topic > > of debate. I'm not sure I'm up for re-opening that can of worms right now. > > I think we can both work on reducing false positives and move it out of > -Wall, it isn't exclusive. > > > I strongly believe -Wmaybe-uninitialized should continue to be enabled by > > -Wall. They tend to either point out obscure ways objects are > > uninitialized or they point out missed optimizations. Both are critical in > > my mind. > > -Wall > This enables all the warnings about constructions that some users > consider questionable, and that are easy to avoid (or modify to > prevent the warning), even in conjunction with macros. > > I don't see how you can ever satisfy the "easy to avoid" part. In my > experience with several code bases, having this warning in -Wall (as opposed > to -Wextra) does more harm than good, with people doing random bad code > changes to try and get the compiler to shut up. > > I still believe this warning is a very useful static analysis tool (I > contributed to make it appear more often in the past), but by definition it > will never avoid false positives. For reference, this conversation moved to gcc-patches here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-02/msg00020.html
