https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109418
--- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Gareth Anthony Hulse from comment #0) > Created attachment 54812 [details] > Output of `make -B 2> /tmp/errors.txt` > > `/usr/include/c++/12.2.1/bits/random.tcc` has variables that are possibly > uninitialised. The two culprits being line 1577: `double __x;` and line > 1600: `double __v;`. initialising them with a value such as 0, stops the > complaints from the compiler. No it's not the culprit. It's obvious __x and __v are not used uninitialized so it's a false warning. But -Wmaybe-uninitialized creates false warnings in the nature (so it's named *maybe*-uninitialized). To me -Werror=maybe-uninitialized does not make any sense.
