[Bug tree-optimization/120208] -Wmaybe-uninitialized with -O2 obviously wrong

2025-05-10 Thread kaelfandrew at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120208 Kael Franco changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #61394|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/120208] -Wmaybe-uninitialized with -O2 obviously wrong

2025-05-10 Thread kaelfandrew at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120208 Kael Franco changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kaelfandrew at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/120208] -Wmaybe-uninitialized with -O2 obviously wrong

2025-05-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120208 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- It is not exactly scan is the issue but what is assigned to scan. Both start and newstart are initialized conditionally. And it seems like it is hard to figure out if the conditions at which they are set are

[Bug tree-optimization/120208] -Wmaybe-uninitialized with -O2 obviously wrong

2025-05-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120208 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Stas Sergeev from comment #1) > While I am at it, I wonder > how to ask gcc to ignore the > #lineno directives in a > preprocessed input. I've found > -P to not generate them, but > if they are