Daniel Jacobowitz - 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 Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:53:49PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 08:44:51PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:32:51PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:

On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 02:13:05AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

| Have -Wuninitialized be a very simple detector, which is either in the front-ends | or in the middle-end so it could be shared (just like -Wunused). | Have -Wuninitialized=2, be the current -Wuninitialized.

That is backward. Have -Wuninitialized means whatever it means today.

Agreed. We don't want it to change much; people who use -Wall -Werror will be particularly pissed off if gcc produces new, but bogus, warnings for uninitialized variables (please feel free to produce new, but valid, warnings).

People who use -Wall -Werror are already pissed off about -Wuninitialized. It virtually guarantees that your build will fail on a new release of GCC.

I don't have that experience, but that's mainly because I use more than one compiler version and turn warnings on in all. Anything marginal is probably gone already.

GDB and binutils have relatively limited, but increasing, exposure to -Werror problems since they've enabled it. So far my experience holds: every newly tried release of GDB triggers a couple new -Wuninitialized warnings.

(It's lost in the noise for GDB, though, which died a terrible death relating to char * vs unsigned char * in prototypes that we're still trying to sort out.)

-- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC

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