------- Comment #33 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-17 13:25 ------- (In reply to comment #32) > We can only fix it with the chance of raising more spurious warnings. One > reason why we run the "may be used uninitialized" pass very late.
The solution of moving the passes around has been discarded long ago. There are other possible solutions. Nonetheless, every change that warns were we previously didn't may rise more spurious warnings, per the Halting problem. In fact, your patch to enable Wuninitialized at -O0 did certainly introduce many spurious warnings. Are you going to revert it? Making use of alias info to detect unitialized uses will introduce spurious warnings, are you going to close PR 19430 and similar? If so, feel free to go through http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Better_Uninitialized_Warnings#current and close all items as WONTFIX. You may all well directly close all bugs listed in PR 24639 that report a missing warning, since implementing the warning will almost certainly lead to spurious warning. The goal is to find a balance. Per Chris Lattner account, LLVM is able to detect simple cases of this PR without generating spurious warnings. So it can definitely be done. I think this PR should be kept open in case someone decides to improve the situation a bit. Please reopen. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
