--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-20 15:18 ---
Mark as a dup of bug 22266.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 22266 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-20 15:18 ---
Reopening to ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #4 from falk at debian dot org 2005-11-20 14:35 ---
I already explained this. Using an uninitialized variable invokes undefined
behavior. This means that producing random junk, executing random if
statements,
executing random if statements 17 times, formatting your hard disk
--- Comment #3 from s_a_white at email dot com 2005-11-20 14:15 ---
Sorry the summary may not be 100% correct, but it is related to the variable
never being directly assigned.
I do understand that using (i.e. assigning from an unintialised variable) will
give you random junk, etc. Howe
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-20 13:37 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> There is no "correct" output when you use a variable uninitialized. It's
> undefined behavior. Printing any number, or crashing, would be completely
> valid behaviors as far as gcc is concerned.
--- Comment #1 from falk at debian dot org 2005-11-20 13:33 ---
There is no "correct" output when you use a variable uninitialized. It's
undefined behavior. Printing any number, or crashing, would be completely
valid behaviors as far as gcc is concerned.
--
falk at debian dot org ch
