http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49754
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Yeleighton
2011-07-15 11:00:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Since (x) is uninitialized, so is (x.i).
>
> But what if x.i gets initialized, is x still uninitialized?
If (x.i) den
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49754
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-07-15
10:16:12 UTC ---
Just to be clear - I completely agree that uninit'd warnings need improving,
I'm not objecting to that. But in my experience (mostly C++) I'd prefer to
have it tracked at the more f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49754
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-07-15
09:56:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Since (x) is uninitialized, so is (x.i).
But what if x.i gets initialized, is x still uninitialized?
struct X { int i; };
struct Y { int i; int j; };
i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49754
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Yeleighton
2011-07-15 09:35:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > == Expected Results ==
> > foo.c: In function ‘foo’:
> > foo.c:2:?: warning: ‘x’ is used uninitialized in this functi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49754
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-07-15
08:36:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> == Expected Results ==
> foo.c: In function ‘foo’:
> foo.c:2:?: warning: ‘x’ is used uninitialized in this function
It should really warn if 'x.i' is us
