------- Comment #31 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-17 12:17 ------- (In reply to comment #30) > (In reply to comment #28) > > We are not going to fix this. > > > > Why? There are many ways to alleviate this. Doing some warnings in the > front-ends, such LLVM does is one. Or propagate some "uninitialized" bit, that > can checked later. Or something that hasn't invented yet. It is clear that > other compilers can get this right, so GCC could, if someone had the time and > interest.
BTW, in my review of Wuninitialized problems, this is problem number 1 of missing warnings, as evidenced by the number of duplicates. So even alleviating this in simple cases would be a major improvement. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
