On 12/30/17, Louis Krupp <louis.kr...@zoho.com> wrote: > Thank you for making me stop and think about this. I was basically full of > crap; like the test case in 78394, the tree compiles just fine at -O0. I > don't know where I got the idea that it didn't. > > Initializing dozens of variables just to make the tree compile at -Og might > be nice in some abstract way, but it's a moving target, and I would be very > surprised if it were worth the trouble. > > Louis >
It's okay; I've tried doing the same thing with stage1 -Wuninitialized warnings at -O0 previously... > > ---- On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:40:38 -0800 Eric Gallager > <eg...@gwmail.gwu.edu> wrote ---- > > On 12/29/17, Louis Krupp <louis.kr...@zoho.com> wrote: > > > I tried to build the trunk using: > > > > > > BOOT_CFLAGS='-g -Og' CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET='-g -Og' CFLAGS_FOR_BUILD='-g > -Og' > > > > > > I got a number of compilation warnings -- promoted to errors -- about > > > possibly uninitialized variables. > > > > > > I have what I believe is a decent patch that initializes those > variables and > > > which I've tested at revision 256030. The errors go away for -Og, as > well as > > > for -O0. > > > > > > When I run make with no arguments and then run "make check", I get the > same > > > test failures as I do in an unmodified and identically built reference > tree > > > at the same revision. > > > > > > I've attached the patch along with a list of tentative ChangeLog > entries and > > > their respective directories. I can adjust the format of those entries > as > > > needed. > > > > > > Being able to build with -Og or -O0 would make my life easier. > > > > > > Louis Krupp > > > > > > > Patches go to the gcc-patches mailing list instead. Also please be > > aware of bug 78394: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78394 > > > > >
