http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58488
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58488
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mimomorin at gmail dot com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58488
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58488
--- Comment #3 from Eric Blake ---
Since the engine is able to warn at -O0 when I _don't_ take the address, I
don't see why the warning is lost by the mere action of taking the address.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58488
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Note that this has nothing to do with the fact that the uninitialized var is a
pointer:
void test(char);
int main(void) {
char oops;
test(oops);
char *other = &oops;
return !other;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58488
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
