--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-23
10:46 ---
This got fixed by Diego's reorganization of the initial optimization passes:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg00955.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-05/msg00529.html
--
What
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-30
23:38 ---
*** Bug 21310 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-26
21:13 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] bogus "may be used
uninitialized" warning
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> This was introduced with a merge from tree-cleanup-branch:
> http://g
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-26
20:53 ---
This was introduced with a merge from tree-cleanup-branch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-04/msg00501.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-20
16:04 ---
Here's an even simpler testcase that triggers the warning with -O, -O2, -O3:
struct A
{
const int& i;
int j;
A(const int& __i) : i(__i), j(0) {}
};
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-20
15:19 ---
Confirmed:
# D.1678_31 = PHI <0(3), D.1678_8(0)>;
Why is this PHI, here, it is just dead code, maybe we should check the use info
to see if it is actually
used.
--
What|Removed
