Mark Mitchell - Re: -Wuninitialized issues (original) (raw)

This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.orgmailing list for the GCC project.

• From: Mark Mitchell
• To: Diego Novillo
• Cc: law at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
• Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:56:09 -0800
• Subject: Re: -Wuninitialized issues
• References: 4365CA5E.3070401@codesourcery.com <200511011106.49922.dnovillo@redhat.com> <1130869072.19967.232.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200511011326.07838.dnovillo@redhat.com>

Diego Novillo wrote:

We won't get perfect answers, which is fine given the nature of the problem. However, I would like, to get consistent answers.

Yes, I agree that's very important. In fact, I'd like to generalize that to say that -- as much as possible -- the same code should generate the same warnings across architectures, optimization levels, and releases as well. If -O3 causes us to say "might have been uninitialized, but we removed it" while -O0 just says "uninitialized" that's probably OK. But, having warnings not appear at -O0, or go away completely with higher levels of optimization isn't good.

-- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC mark@codesourcery.com (916) 791-8304

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: -Wuninitialized issues
    * From: Jeffrey A Law
• References:
  • Re: -Wuninitialized issues
    * From: Diego Novillo
  • Re: -Wuninitialized issues
    * From: Jeffrey A Law
  • Re: -Wuninitialized issues
    * From: Diego Novillo