[Bug middle-end/30575] Missing warning about unitialized variable

2009-02-07 Thread muntyan at tamu dot edu
--- Comment #4 from muntyan at tamu dot edu 2009-02-07 20:38 --- Hm, it might be a dup of #18501, but a mere mortal like me can't decide if it's so. Sorry for the spam if that's the case. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30575

[Bug middle-end/30575] Missing warning about unitialized variable

2009-02-07 Thread muntyan at tamu dot edu
--- Comment #3 from muntyan at tamu dot edu 2009-02-07 20:35 --- See the comments #17 and #18 in bug #22456. This is not a dup. -- muntyan at tamu dot edu changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/22456] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning

2009-02-07 Thread muntyan at tamu dot edu
--- Comment #18 from muntyan at tamu dot edu 2009-02-07 20:35 --- There were couple of bugs with real C code where warnings are actually useful - see comment #2, and they were closed as a dup of this one. This one may or may not be important, but the warning did go for good, in valid

[Bug middle-end/30856] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] Missing "warning: '$FOO' may be used uninitialized in this function" in trivial case

2007-02-19 Thread muntyan at tamu dot edu
--- Comment #5 from muntyan at tamu dot edu 2007-02-19 14:07 --- (In reply to comment #4) > I doubt this is a duplicate of Bug 22456 because the code there is dead. > It looks more like Bug 30542 and Bug 30575 which both are mentioned in Bug > 22456. These do not look like dupl

[Bug middle-end/22456] [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] missing "is used uninitialized" warning

2007-01-28 Thread muntyan at tamu dot edu
--- Comment #8 from muntyan at tamu dot edu 2007-01-28 20:15 --- Is the code here or in comment #2 the same as in 30542 and 30575? It may be, but gcc users who don't know gcc internals (like me), can't easily see this, and missing warning (in those two bugs, not here) is quite

[Bug c/30575] Missing warning about unitialized variable

2007-01-25 Thread muntyan at tamu dot edu
--- Comment #1 from muntyan at tamu dot edu 2007-01-25 13:27 --- The original code warns if you use -O3 (I guess because of inlining or something), the code below is better: - #include int func (void); int main (void) { int foo; if (func

[Bug c/30575] New: Missing warning about unitialized variable

2007-01-24 Thread muntyan at tamu dot edu
ummary: Missing warning about unitialized variable Product: gcc Version: 4.1.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: muntyan at tamu

[Bug c/30542] gcc 4.1.1 missing uninitialized variable warnings

2007-01-22 Thread muntyan at tamu dot edu
--- Comment #3 from muntyan at tamu dot edu 2007-01-23 03:09 --- Is it really quite as 22456? That bug is about variable used for initializing itself, and really strange do-nothing code, while this one is straightforward use of unitialized variable: int main (void) { int i, foo

[Bug c/29521] New: Confusing warning for return with expression in function returning void

2006-10-19 Thread muntyan at tamu dot edu
tatus: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: muntyan at tamu dot edu http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29521