https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #31 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
There's something I don't understand: Whether -Wuninitialized or
-Wmaybe-uninitialized is used, I don't see any difference in the behavior of
GCC between
[...]
if (bar (i)) {
baz (&j);
}
[...]
an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14708
--- Comment #9 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
An update after all these years: As Joseph S. Myers said in the gcc-help list
in February 2005, "even -ffloat-store only deals with assignment, not casts":
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2005-Februa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #215 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
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 that
the correct one is CONFIRMED.
--
You are receiving
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #227 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
In "See Also", there are several bugs that are related only to vectorization
optimizations. What is the relation with this bug?
For instance, PR89653 is "GCC (trunk and all earlier versions) fails to
vecto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #228 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
PR64410 and PR68180 should also be removed from "See Also".
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #197 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #196)
> Also, the official FAQ for this (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#nonbugs_general)
> is seriously lacking info and outdated. From now on, I'll point people to:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
--
You
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #18 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
This seems to be fixed in the trunk.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubsc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #22 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(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 ?
Actually, w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #23 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
BTW, I suppose that in this test, -Wuninitialized should be changed to
"-Wuninitialized -Wmaybe-uninitialized" in case it is decided later that
-Wuninitialized no longer enables -Wmaybe-uninitialized (see P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #26 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(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 3 kinds of use:
1. Users who are interested in neither: the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28314
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
12 matches
Mail list logo
