Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 08:23:32PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote: >> The Intel documentation for _mm256_undefined_si256() [0] >> indicates that it is intended to return "undefined elements," so it seems >> like the use of an uninitialized variable might be intentional.
> See also https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=72af61b122. Ah, interesting. That hasn't propagated to stable distros yet, evidently (and even when it does, I wonder how soon Coverity will understand it). Anyway, that does establish that it's gcc's problem not ours. Thanks for digging! regards, tom lane
