[Bug lto/65991] maybe-unitialized - false positive

[dilyan.palauzov at aegee dot org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65991

--- Comment #5 from Дилян Палаузов dilyan.palauzov at aegee dot org ---
The problem does not appear anymore, since I upgraded gcc 4.9.2 - 4.9.3 .

[Bug lto/65991] maybe-unitialized - false positive

[trippels at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65991

Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |INVALID

--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
No feedback. Closing.

[Bug lto/65991] maybe-unitialized - false positive

[dilyan.palauzov at aegee dot org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65991

Дилян Палаузов dilyan.palauzov at aegee dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
 Resolution|INVALID |---

--- Comment #2 from Дилян Палаузов dilyan.palauzov at aegee dot org ---
Despite the custom CFLAGS used when building binutils, there is false positive
LTO warning.

[Bug lto/65991] maybe-unitialized - false positive

[trippels at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65991

Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
 Resolution|--- |INVALID

--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If you use custom CFLAGS when building binutils then configure with:
--disable-werror.

[Bug lto/65991] maybe-unitialized - false positive

[trippels at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65991

Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
   Last reconfirmed||2015-05-03
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Дилян Палаузов from comment #2)
 Despite the custom CFLAGS used when building binutils, there is false
 positive LTO warning.

Well, first of all, please attach a small testcase as per
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.
And also note the word maybe in the warning. False positives are expected.

And finally this almost certainly a dup.
(Search existing bugs before opening new ones)