[Bug middle-end/19430] taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning (virtual PHI with MEM)

2022-08-29 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- Comment #

[Bug middle-end/19430] taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning (virtual PHI with MEM)

2022-08-29 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2005-05-03 18:04:44 |2022-8-29 --- Comment #37 from Richard

[Bug middle-end/19430] taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning (virtual PHI with MEM)

2021-03-31 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||scott.d.phillips at intel dot com --- Co

[Bug middle-end/19430] taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning (virtual PHI with MEM)

2020-10-27 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #35

[Bug middle-end/19430] taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning

2018-09-13 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jimfr06 at gmail dot com --- Comme

[Bug middle-end/19430] taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning

2017-11-07 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||arnd at linaro dot org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/19430] taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning

2017-03-03 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu.org
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

[Bug middle-end/19430] taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning

2017-03-02 Thread vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
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

[Bug middle-end/19430] taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning

2017-03-02 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu.org
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); > ..

[Bug middle-end/19430] taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning

2017-03-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430 --- Comment #29 from Richard Biener --- What remains seems to be complaining that int i; foo (&i); doesn't warn. And we have another bug that int i; foo (&i); ... = i; doesn't warn for the read from i. I think both of these need a

[Bug middle-end/19430] taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning

2015-02-23 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tisaac at ices dot utexas.edu ---

[Bug middle-end/19430] taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning

2013-11-21 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu.org
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

[Bug middle-end/19430] taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning

2013-11-21 Thread vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
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

[Bug middle-end/19430] taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning

2013-11-21 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu.org
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

[Bug middle-end/19430] taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning

2013-11-21 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|V_MAY_DEF (taking address |taking address of a var