https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80152
--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Dröge ---
Because the value of uninitialized variables is implementation-defined, and as
such gcc can freely set it to anything that it wants? That would explain it
then, yes. Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80152
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Sebastian Dröge from comment #3)
> But even after optimization, there would be the argc!=1 code path left,
> which uses the uninitialized foo.
No, the optimization sets foo to 1 always, and argc i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80152
--- Comment #3 from Sebastian Dröge ---
But even after optimization, there would be the argc!=1 code path left, which
uses the uninitialized foo.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80152
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80152
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||24639
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biene
