On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 03:21:00PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> I see. Thanks for clarifying that. No warning on a declaration
>> alone makes sense in the case above but it has the unfortunate
>> effect of suppressing the warning when the declaration is followed
>> by a statement, such as in:
>>
>> void f (int*, int);
>>
>> void g (int i)
>> {
>> switch (i) {
>> int a [3];
>> memset (a, 0, sizeof a);
>>
>> default:
>> f (a, 3);
>> }
>> }
>
> Ah, then I think we should probably look into GIMPLE_TRY, using
> gimple_try_eval, too.
It might also make sense to distinguish between gimple_try_kind of
GIMPLE_TRY_CATCH (a user-written try block) and GIMPLE_TRY_FINALLY (a
compiler-generated cleanup).
Jason
