------- Comment #2 from bernard at brenda-arkle dot demon dot co dot uk
2007-07-16 19:01 -------
I have gone through this removing many repetitions of "see above for my
actual bug report". Please take it as read (and see above for my actual
bug report).
I explicitly said that the mere confession of ignorance ("may be used
uninitialized") was not a problem. The claim that 'xlimit' IS used
uninitialized is false. I don't see that it is in any way justified
by claiming more rather than less ignorance. The mistake is sensitive
to internal rearrangement (without changed semantics) of the clauses
in the 'switch' statement, and also to the presence or absence of the
assignment to 'diff' following the 'switch' statement. It's hard to
see in what sense ignorance about the possible values of 'ang' is
affected by either feature of the code. Even if it is, the mistake is
still a mistake. The offered explanation is certainly not complete,
since it sheds no light on its selective appearance (well, none to my
possibly poor eyesight, anyway).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32759
