--- Comment #12 from jellegeerts at gmail dot com 2010-08-31 20:54 ---
Thanks. :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45467
--- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-31 20:53 ---
Because when foo is not static, it has to be compiled. If it is static, GCC
figures it is a pure function (only reads memory and arguments and computes
from it its return value) and as the result in main of the funct
--- Comment #10 from jellegeerts at gmail dot com 2010-08-31 20:49 ---
Also, it seems a bit questionable to not warn when it is clearly(?) not the
developers intent to use an uninitialized variable. What is the rationale
behind this? Is it a pragmatic thing?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
--- Comment #9 from jellegeerts at gmail dot com 2010-08-31 20:47 ---
Okay. :)
Though, why does GCC warn when we have `#if 1', and not if we have `#if 0'?
Just curiosity...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45467
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-31 20:37 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Updated code snippet, GCC doesn't warn here either if we leave `#if 0' as-is,
> even though the function foo() may have side-effects.
No, the function below does not have any side-effects. Th
--- Comment #7 from jellegeerts at gmail dot com 2010-08-31 20:32 ---
Updated code snippet, GCC doesn't warn here either if we leave `#if 0' as-is,
even though the function foo() may have side-effects.
<<<
#include
static int array[32];
#if 0 // If '#if 1' is used, GCC wa
--- Comment #6 from jellegeerts at gmail dot com 2010-08-31 20:14 ---
It also happens in functions that do have side-effects. I can give you an
example if you want?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45467
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-31 20:13 ---
That's because the whole foo function doesn't have any side-effects, so it is
optimized away completely.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45467
--- Comment #4 from jellegeerts at gmail dot com 2010-08-31 20:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=21622)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21622&action=view)
`.i' file that GCC created
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45467
--- Comment #3 from jellegeerts at gmail dot com 2010-08-31 20:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=21621)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21621&action=view)
the `.i' file that GCC created
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45467
--- Comment #2 from jellegeerts at gmail dot com 2010-08-31 20:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=21620)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21620&action=view)
output of `gcc -v -save-temps -std=c99 -O -g -Wall gcctest.c -o gcctest'
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
--- Comment #1 from jellegeerts at gmail dot com 2010-08-31 20:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=21619)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21619&action=view)
output of `gcc -v -save-temps -std=c99 -O -g -Wall gcctest.c -o gcctest'
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
12 matches
Mail list logo
