[rant?] g++ bug (missing uninitialized warning), bug reporting, bug searching
Howdy,
The following piece of code:
=== snip ===
#include
struct warnme
{
bool member_;
warnme(bool member) : member_(member_) {}
};
int main()
{
warnme wm(true);
std::cout << wm.member_ << std::endl;
return 0;
}
=== end snip ===
when compiled with g++ 4.7, gives me no warnings - even with
-Wuninitialized (clang++ 3.1 is fine, by the way). I then decided to
report a bug, but:
- I need to login to report a bug, and I have to create an account. Is
this a way to reduce the number of bugs GCC gets?
- I searched for uninitialized and got 156 bugs. How easy would it be
for one to check if a bug is a duplicate? Shouldn't we have some kind
of code search for bug-related snippets?
best,
--
Bruno Nery
Re: [rant?] g++ bug (missing uninitialized warning), bug reporting, bug searching
-Winit-self doesn't report it either (at least in g++ 4.7).
--
Bruno Nery
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> GCC has the -Winit-self warning.
>
> David
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Bruno Nery wrote:
>> Howdy,
>>
>> The following piece of code:
>>
>> === snip ===
>> #include
>>
>> struct warnme
>> {
>> bool member_;
>> warnme(bool member) : member_(member_) {}
>> };
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> warnme wm(true);
>> std::cout << wm.member_ << std::endl;
>> return 0;
>> }
>> === end snip ===
>>
>> when compiled with g++ 4.7, gives me no warnings - even with
>> -Wuninitialized (clang++ 3.1 is fine, by the way). I then decided to
>> report a bug, but:
>>
>> - I need to login to report a bug, and I have to create an account. Is
>> this a way to reduce the number of bugs GCC gets?
>> - I searched for uninitialized and got 156 bugs. How easy would it be
>> for one to check if a bug is a duplicate? Shouldn't we have some kind
>> of code search for bug-related snippets?
>>
>> best,
>>
>> --
>> Bruno Nery
Re: [rant?] g++ bug (missing uninitialized warning), bug reporting, bug searching
Twenty two might be a more manageable number, but still... why do we
need an account to report a bug?
--
Bruno Nery
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 12:18 -0800, Bruno Nery wrote:
>> Howdy,
>>
>> The following piece of code:
>>
>> === snip ===
>> #include
>>
>> struct warnme
>> {
>> bool member_;
>> warnme(bool member) : member_(member_) {}
>> };
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> warnme wm(true);
>> std::cout << wm.member_ << std::endl;
>> return 0;
>> }
>> === end snip ===
>>
>> when compiled with g++ 4.7, gives me no warnings - even with
>> -Wuninitialized (clang++ 3.1 is fine, by the way). I then decided to
>> report a bug, but:
>>
>> - I need to login to report a bug, and I have to create an account. Is
>> this a way to reduce the number of bugs GCC gets?
>
> This issue has been raised just recently on the gcc-help mailing list.
> See the thread:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2012-10/threads.html#00061
>
>> - I searched for uninitialized and got 156 bugs. How easy would it be
>> for one to check if a bug is a duplicate? Shouldn't we have some kind
>> of code search for bug-related snippets?
>
> I've just searched for "uninitialized missing" and got 22 bugs, some of
> them seem to look related to yours, although I haven't checked/compared
> the details. In the worst case you can just file the bug and it will be
> marked as duplicate eventually (if it is one).
>
> Cheers,
> Oleg
>
Re: [rant?] g++ bug (missing uninitialized warning), bug reporting, bug searching
A good reason, stopping spammers - but why not allow a generic (e.g. Google/Facebook/StackOverflow)/OpenID login? As the original poster of that thread, I don't like to have to keep track of accounts (and passwords) only for posting one bug. Also, CAPTCHAs might be an option - or changing to a bug tracking system without the pitfalls of Bugzilla. best, -- Bruno Nery On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Oleg Endo wrote: > On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 13:22 -0800, Bruno Nery wrote: >> Twenty two might be a more manageable number, but still... why do we >> need an account to report a bug? > > This issue has been raised just recently on the gcc-help mailing list. > See the thread: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2012-10/threads.html#00061 > > The answer to your question is in the first reply by Ian Lance Taylor. > > Cheers, > Oleg >
