http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54554
--- Comment #9 from Dominik Muth ---
Please note that in Bug 60791 no warning is given even with -O3 (except when
using a legacy version of gcc).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54554
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Dimitris Papavasiliou from comment #6)
> I don't mean to dictate the coding-style others should use of course but
> still it seems to me like a small price to pay for avoiding obscure
> stoc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54554
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dominik.muth at gmx dot de
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54554
--- Comment #6 from Dimitris Papavasiliou
2013-01-04 14:50:32 UTC ---
Well this seems to be a core decision regarding the way GCC warnings work
(which probably has more far-reaching consequences) but just for the sake of
argument, I don't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54554
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2013-01-04
12:49:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Still even without knowing that a "may be used uninitialized" warning can be
> issued in any case.
GCC does not warn if it can prove that the code is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54554
--- Comment #4 from Dimitris Papavasiliou
2013-01-04 12:41:02 UTC ---
Still even without knowing that a "may be used uninitialized" warning can be
issued in any case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54554
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54554
--- Comment #2 from Dimitris Papavasiliou
2012-09-12 10:19:20 UTC ---
Specifying -O does indeed produce a warning if i is not assigned a constant
value (for instance i = rand(); ). Omitting -O and specifying
-Wmaybe-uninitialized does not produc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54554
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
