https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18017
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18017
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-23 00:02 ---
No longer working on this.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 20:46
---
Ok, now I understand (I was really busy this morning not to understand).
Confirmed, I will try to get this done for 4.1.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From ejb at ql dot org 2004-10-15 20:40 ---
In other words, instead of saying:
Note this option can only be used with the`-Wuninitialized' option, which in
turn only works with `-O1' and above.
say
Note this option automatically implies -Wunitialized, which only
--- Additional Comments From ejb at ql dot org 2004-10-15 20:34 ---
I think you misunderstood. I'm not suggesting -Wunitialized should turn on
-Winit-self; I'm suggesting the other way around. Since -Winit-self doesn't
work without -Wunitialized, it's pointless to have it without -Wunit
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 17:00
---
Not going to happen because people use int a = a; as to turn off uninitialize warnings
(which is why
-Winit-self was added in the first place).
--
What|Removed |Added
-
