Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: James dot Juran at baesystems dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20968
--- Additional Comments From James dot Juran at baesystems dot com
2005-04-12 14:07 ---
This bug appears to be related to, but not duplicates of, the following bugs:
PR 20644 -- is unreachable code. This test case is all reachable.
PR 5035 -- is not a regression. This test case is a
--- Additional Comments From James dot Juran at baesystems dot com
2005-04-12 16:21 ---
Thanks for the info. Your testcase does warn in all versions I tested. We can
certainly initialize the variable in our code to get around this issue, but it
would be nice to not have to do this
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||James dot Juran at
||baesystems dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||James dot Juran at
||baesystems dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org
t: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: James dot Juran at baesystems dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26264
--- Comment #5 from James dot Juran at baesystems dot com 2006-02-13 19:06
---
Yes, that does seem to be the case based on the ChangeLog I quoted. And of
course the easy workaround for a developer is just to use __builtin_va_start
instead. But is the deprecation of
--- Comment #7 from James dot Juran at baesystems dot com 2006-02-13 19:15
---
Point granted; I guess __builtin_stdarg_start could just be removed without
warning or notice.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26264
--- Comment #9 from James dot Juran at baesystems dot com 2007-01-24 17:22
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> What about a warning about __builtin_stdarg_start being deprecated? That will
> be clearer than the current warning, and we can still keep backwards
> compatibility (the
