On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mar 12, 2008, at 5:07 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > > > On 08/03/2008, Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> clang points into the original input buffer that was lexed from. > >> This > >> requires keeping the original files mapped into the address space of > >> the compiler. However, clang only produces diagnostics from the > >> front- > >> end, not from the middle-end. > > > > So no warnings for uninitialized variables? > > The clang front-end generates these warnings. This means that the set > of warnings produced by the compiler doesn't change as the optimizer > evolves, are generally less mystifying to the user, and have perfect > location info as a side effect. People who use -Werror tend to prefer > when they don't get new random warnings due to a compiler upgrade. > This approach is similar to what Java compilers do and frontends like > EDG do (afaik).
I strongly support this point of view, and I would like to encourage fellow GCC developers to give it considerations. I know Mark Mittchell had spoken in favour of it in the past. > > The Clang project is also growing a static analysis engine which is > very adept at solving path sensitive versions of these problems, which > is useful for finding deeper bugs. This is a debate we would like to have in a different thread :-)
