On 12/30/17, Louis Krupp wrote:
> Thank you for making me stop and think about this. I was basically full of
> crap; like the test case in 78394, the tree compiles just fine at -O0. I
> don't know where I got the idea that it didn't.
>
> Initializing dozens of variables just to make the tree compile at -Og might
> be nice in some abstract way, but it's a moving target, and I would be very
> surprised if it were worth the trouble.
>
> Louis
>
It's okay; I've tried doing the same thing with stage1 -Wuninitialized
warnings at -O0 previously...
>
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 19:40:38 -0800 Eric Gallager
> wrote
> > On 12/29/17, Louis Krupp wrote:
> > > I tried to build the trunk using:
> > >
> > > BOOT_CFLAGS='-g -Og' CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET='-g -Og' CFLAGS_FOR_BUILD='-g
> -Og'
> > >
> > > I got a number of compilation warnings -- promoted to errors -- about
> > > possibly uninitialized variables.
> > >
> > > I have what I believe is a decent patch that initializes those
> variables and
> > > which I've tested at revision 256030. The errors go away for -Og, as
> well as
> > > for -O0.
> > >
> > > When I run make with no arguments and then run "make check", I get the
> same
> > > test failures as I do in an unmodified and identically built reference
> tree
> > > at the same revision.
> > >
> > > I've attached the patch along with a list of tentative ChangeLog
> entries and
> > > their respective directories. I can adjust the format of those entries
> as
> > > needed.
> > >
> > > Being able to build with -Og or -O0 would make my life easier.
> > >
> > > Louis Krupp
> > >
> >
> > Patches go to the gcc-patches mailing list instead. Also please be
> > aware of bug 78394: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78394
> >
>
>
>
