--- Comment #21 from thutt at vmware dot com 2010-09-03 13:07 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Is 'coverity' a compiler? I don't think so.
Coverity is not a tool that generates code, but it does perform
all the syntactic semantic analysis that a code-generating compiler will.
Then, it
--- Comment #22 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-03 14:06 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
(In reply to comment #8)
Is 'coverity' a compiler? I don't think so.
Coverity is not a tool that generates code, but it does perform
all the syntactic semantic analysis that a
--- Comment #19 from tadhunt at gmail dot com 2010-09-02 16:01 ---
This flamewar in the comments is hilarious.
To all concerned, here is a much simpler example. This does appear to be a
regression. I apologize that I cannot help fix it, as it's a really useful
feature that helps
--- Comment #20 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-02 23:10 ---
The first testcase and the second are different issues. Both of them are old,
known and reported in bugzilla. None of them are trivial to fix.
GCC developers would wish to make our compiler as powerful as to solve
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-27 14:00
---
No attachment. Moreover, please try also a more recent release, in the 4.4.x
series.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42884
--- Comment #2 from tstdenis at elliptictech dot com 2010-01-27 14:01
---
Here's the file [I'm getting an internal error when submitting a file]
---warning.c---
#define NULL ((void *)0)
#define OK 0
typedef struct { void *a; } state;
int init(int, state *);
int done(unsigned char *,
--- Comment #3 from tstdenis at elliptictech dot com 2010-01-27 14:02
---
(In reply to comment #1)
No attachment. Moreover, please try also a more recent release, in the 4.4.x
series.
No warning from GCC 4.4.0 when using '-Wall -W -O3'.
--
tstdenis at elliptictech dot com
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-27 14:07
---
Yes. I'm pretty sure we have duplicates in Bugzilla. Anyway, I just tested two
other high quality compilers and they don't warn either. I don't think we can
reach zero negatives in this area any time soon.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #5 from tstdenis at elliptictech dot com 2010-01-27 14:08
---
(In reply to comment #4)
Yes. I'm pretty sure we have duplicates in Bugzilla. Anyway, I just tested two
other high quality compilers and they don't warn either. I don't think we can
reach zero negatives in
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-27 14:13
---
I'm restating my point: indeed, the variable can be used uninitialized. This is
not at issue. My point is that, depending on the way the compiler is internally
organized, etc, you can have it warning for a
--- Comment #7 from tstdenis at elliptictech dot com 2010-01-27 14:28
---
(In reply to comment #6)
I'm restating my point: indeed, the variable can be used uninitialized. This
is
not at issue. My point is that, depending on the way the compiler is
internally
organized, etc, you
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-27 14:37
---
Is 'coverity' a compiler? I don't think so. Do you have actual examples of
*compilers* which, everything taken into account, decided to make sure this
case is worth warning?
--
--- Comment #9 from tstdenis at elliptictech dot com 2010-01-27 15:43
---
(In reply to comment #8)
Is 'coverity' a compiler? I don't think so. Do you have actual examples of
*compilers* which, everything taken into account, decided to make sure this
case is worth warning?
I wonder
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-27 15:47
---
To be clear: nobody closed this bug, ever. And talking about apathy is plain
offensive, or maybe you are just ignorant of the trade-offs involved in this
area.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment #11 from tstdenis at elliptictech dot com 2010-01-27 15:57
---
(In reply to comment #10)
To be clear: nobody closed this bug, ever. And talking about apathy is plain
offensive, or maybe you are just ignorant of the trade-offs involved in this
area.
I didn't say you did
--- Comment #12 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-01-27 15:59
---
You are apathetic, and your mother and son.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42884
--- Comment #13 from tstdenis at elliptictech dot com 2010-01-27 16:05
---
(In reply to comment #12)
You are apathetic, and your mother and son.
`
Apathy: noun, a lack of enthusiasm or emotion.
Being dismissive of the bug because other compilers don't detect it either is
apathetic.
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-27 16:06
---
As diglen has its address taken and we do not warn about uninitialized use
of memory we do not warn.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from tstdenis at elliptictech dot com 2010-01-27 16:22
---
(In reply to comment #14)
As diglen has its address taken and we do not warn about uninitialized use
of memory we do not warn.
I get that the compiler can't track if an external function actually
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42884
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-27 16:51
---
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #14)
As diglen has its address taken and we do not warn about uninitialized use
of memory we do not warn.
I get that the compiler can't track if an
--- Comment #17 from tstdenis at elliptictech dot com 2010-01-27 17:55
---
(In reply to comment #16)
No, it's an implementation detail. Uninitialized variable use tracking
works with detecting uses of SSA name default definitions. Memory
is not in SSA form so this mechanism does
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-27 19:51
---
(In reply to comment #17)
(In reply to comment #16)
No, it's an implementation detail. Uninitialized variable use tracking
works with detecting uses of SSA name default definitions. Memory
is not in SSA
25 matches
Mail list logo
