[Bug middle-end/21733] filecmp.c:252: warning: #n1# may be used uninitialized in this function

-- gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed

[Bug middle-end/21750] GCC gives may be used uninitialized warning for a non-conditional initialised variable. (not a duplicate bug!)

-- gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed

[Bug middle-end/22197] invalid "is" used uninitialized, should be "may be"

--- Comment #4 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 07:44 --- (In reply to comment #2) > Hmm, sort of. The call of g(i) also warns with "is used", although I > think it might deserve only a "may be used". But anyway I think that > this nevertheless has different causes. It's n

[Bug target/23648] Spurious uninitialized variable warnings at -O1 and higher

--- Comment #2 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 07:47 --- With mailine compiler (GCC-4.2.x), I cannot reproduce the reported behaviour. -- Gaby -- gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added --

[Bug c/24016] Missing warning for unspecified evaluation order

-- gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/24239] spurious warning about clobbered variables w.r.t. longjmp

--- Comment #3 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 07:54 --- (In reply to comment #2) > Indeed, in gcc-4.0.1, the previous code chunk does not elicit a warning. > However, a slightly modified version still gets a warning (tested > on RHEL-4, with ). I can reproduce the behaviourw

<    1   2