On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:13:29AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >But -Wuninitialized also found tons of real-world bugs. Do we have a single
> >real-world example where such a warning would actually be useful (as in,
> >there would be an actual bug)? Otherwise we are adding workarounds for a
>
On 12/02/2016 11:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:02:33AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
It won't cause any problems in this and probably most instances, but leaving
the code in its prior state is simply wrong from a maintenance standpoint.
I'd much rather have the code
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:02:33AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> It won't cause any problems in this and probably most instances, but leaving
> the code in its prior state is simply wrong from a maintenance standpoint.
>
> I'd much rather have the code explicitly and safely handle the zero operands
>
On 12/02/2016 10:58 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 11:43:19PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
Martin's alloca work flagged this code as problematical. Essentially if we
had a statement with no operands and the statement was not in the hash
table, then we could end up performing
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 11:43:19PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> Martin's alloca work flagged this code as problematical. Essentially if we
> had a statement with no operands and the statement was not in the hash
> table, then we could end up performing alloca (0), which is inadvisable.
I still
