https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118628
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Thu, 23 Jan 2025, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118628 > > Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, > | |matz at gcc dot gnu.org, > | |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org > > --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > Seems it is like > tree offvar; > tree running_off; > if (!costing_p) > { > ... (..., &offvar, ...); > } > running_off = offvar; > for (...) > { > if (costing_p) > { > ... > continue; > } > use running_off; > } > So, all wrong it does is that it is copying possibly uninitialized value > unconditionally to something that will not be used unless it is initialized. > Agreed we should either initialize offvar to NULL_TREE or rework in some other > way. I'd say zero-initialize it.
