http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46853
--- Comment #2 from gcc-bugs at nospam dot pz.podzone.net 2010-12-09 08:36:46
UTC ---
The variable can be optimised away in the WHILE_LOOP test case so in effect the
variable 'foo' is never used uninitialised.
However with the FOR_LOOP test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46853
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
2010-12-09 14:36:15 UTC ---
There are already many bug reports about missing used uninitialized warnings
(such as my PR42905). It seems that the GCC devs do not take them all to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46853
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-09
14:40:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
It seems that the GCC devs do not take them all to heart.
No, they just don't have the resources to fix them all. It's not an easy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46853
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46853
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-08
20:35:19 UTC ---
This is a dup of x, we apply conditional constant and copy propagation
which will optimize the uninitialized use away before we have a chance to warn.
