> Original Message
> >From: Joe Buck
> >Sent: 11 July 2005 20:07
>
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:07:20PM +0200, Sylvester Diehl wrote:
> >> why doesn't gcc (-Wall -Wuninitalized -O) detect
> >> an uninialized variable passed by reference
> >> decleared as const * ?
> >
> > There are no
Original Message
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: 12 July 2005 10:56
> "Dave Korn" writes:
>
>> Myself, I was surprised that the inliner didn't catch on to what
>> was going on and complain. I would have expected that, but it
>> didn't even at O3.
>
> It does for me with mainline.
"Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>From: Joe Buck
>>
>> there are no uninitialized variables, as the address of k is
>> perfectly well defined.
>
> Indeed so, but I think Sylvester's point is that given that foo
> takes a const pointer, the compiler could theoretically know that
> foo ca
Original Message
>From: Joe Buck
>Sent: 11 July 2005 20:07
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:07:20PM +0200, Sylvester Diehl wrote:
>> why doesn't gcc (-Wall -Wuninitalized -O) detect
>> an uninialized variable passed by reference
>> decleared as const * ?
>
> There are no uninitialized variab
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:07:20PM +0200, Sylvester Diehl wrote:
> why doesn't gcc (-Wall -Wuninitalized -O) detect
> an uninialized variable passed by reference
> decleared as const * ?
There are no uninitialized variables in your program. For the
kind of access checking you seem to be asking
