[Bug c/39731] New: Separate warning classes for maybe-uninitialized and known-uninitialized variables.

2009-04-10 Thread scottwood at freescale dot com
c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: scottwood at freescale dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39731

[Bug middle-end/39731] Separate warning classes for maybe-uninitialized and known-uninitialized variables.

2009-04-16 Thread scottwood at freescale dot com
--- Comment #2 from scottwood at freescale dot com 2009-04-16 18:30 --- (In reply to comment #1) > >The problem is that GCC does not give an error > > It can't give an error for that code as it is only runtime undefined and it > does not have to be invoked at runtim

[Bug target/69617] PowerPC/e6500: Atomic byte/halfword operations not properly supported

2016-04-05 Thread scottwood at freescale dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69617 Scott wood changed: What|Removed |Added CC||scottwood at freescale dot com --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/36124] conditional loop becomes infinite loop in -O2 (gcc 4.2 -> 4.3 regression)

2008-05-13 Thread scottwood at freescale dot com
--- Comment #11 from scottwood at freescale dot com 2008-05-13 21:13 --- (In reply to comment #4) > If your code invokes undefined behavior, how is gcc going > to read your mind? If GCC can tell that it is undefined behavior, then warning the user is more useful than si