https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #30 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #29)
> What remains seems to be complaining that
>
> int i;
> foo (&i);
>
> doesn't warn. And we have another bug that
>
> int i;
> foo (&i);
> ..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #32 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #31)
> In any case, no warnings are generated. So, the problem here is not related
> to whether the address of j is taken, but to something else.
With a const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jimfr06 at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|taking address of a var |taking address of a var
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arnd at linaro dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #216 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #215)
> According to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_status
> the possible status are UNCONFIRMED, CONFIRMED and IN_PROGRESS. I think t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jyasskin at gmail dot com |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
--- Comment #24 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
For completeness, this is what LLD says:
ld.lld: error: undefined symbol: vtable for A
>>> referenced by example.cpp:7
>>> /tmp/example-5d8b98.o:(A::A())
>>> the vtable symbol may be und
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42540
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||46542
--- Comment #9 from Manuel Ló
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|mueller at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
--- Comment #28 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-06-02
21:46:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> I've posted a patch to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg00191.html
> which gives this for the code in comment 25
BTW, I would suggest th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #198 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #197)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #196)
> > Also, the official FAQ for this (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#nonbugs_general)
> > is seriously lac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tisaac at ices dot utexas.edu
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #18)
> This seems to be fixed in the trunk.
Is there an XPASS for gcc.dg/uninit-pr19430.c ?
Also, the testcase from bug 42079?
--
You are receiving this mai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #20 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #19)
> (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #18)
> > This seems to be fixed in the trunk.
>
> Is there an XPASS for gcc.dg/uninit-pr19430.c ?
>
> Als
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #21 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
$ ~/test1/205036M/build/gcc/cc1 -O1 -Wuninitialized test.c
-fdump-tree-all-all-lineno
$ cat test.c.139t.uninit1
foo (intD.6 iD.1789)
{
intD.6 jD.1792;
intD.6 _5;
intD.6 _7;
;; basic block 2,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #25 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #23)
> BTW, I suppose that in this test, -Wuninitialized should be changed to
> "-Wuninitialized -Wmaybe-uninitialized" in case it is decided later that
> -Wuni
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #27 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #26)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #25)
> > I don't see any reason for -Wuninitialized to not enable
> > -Wmaybe-uninitialized.
>
> I can see
21 matches
Mail list logo
