https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91358
--- Comment #7 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #6)
> (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #3)
> > I don't really see any, no good idea here :-/
>
> How about moving all the optimizations based on reading uniniti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91358
--- Comment #6 from Antony Polukhin ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #3)
> I don't really see any, no good idea here :-/
How about moving all the optimizations based on reading uninitialized values
under a flag like -funinitialized-log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91358
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> I guess valgrind could be improved to check
> only at uses of the uninit value?
It is used. In the easy case it would be used in "undef & 0", so the result
does n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91358
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91358
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #2)
> (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #1)
> Valgrind complains are distracting. GDB entering the destructor is
> missleading. Is there a simple way to change th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91358
--- Comment #2 from Antony Polukhin ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #1)
> So, if you've seen a real problem somewhere (and not just valgrind
> complaining about uninitialized registers in comparisons),
> then you've reduced the testcas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91358
Michael Matz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
