Jeffrey A Law - Re: -Wuninitialized issues (original) (raw)

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

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 12:56 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:

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. I'm OK with this, as long as it's option controlled separate from -Wuninitialized or it's enabled with something like -Wuninitialized-blah

I don't have terribly strong opinions on whether or not the warning text changes. It's cool that we can distinguish the cases, but there are more important things in life :-)

It's certainly easier to implement a switch that just changes when we run the maybe-uninitialized code than it is to implement the changes necessary to issue the more precise warnings in the two-pass approach.

Jeff

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]