Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:17:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Benjamin Kaduk <bjk@freebsd.org> To: Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org>, David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org> Cc: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org>, "current@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: bsd.sys.mk [-Wno-uninitialized] Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1407151000390.21571@multics.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <53C4F39E.2030407@selasky.org> References: <20140704123901.GR6056@albert.catwhisker.org> <53B6E218.5070009@selasky.org> <20140704174705.GS6056@albert.catwhisker.org> <53B6EDD1.8030506@selasky.org> <20140704181831.GV6056@albert.catwhisker.org> <909248A4-1B7C-4836-ADAA-F81A70A8AC3C@theravensnest.org> <F7112AF8-82DD-410D-97A1-C01FFB49B3B4@FreeBSD.org> <771D269B-AC6D-4686-ABB0-04F7DCD3A8D9@FreeBSD.org> <53C4F39E.2030407@selasky.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-stable to bcc; keeping -current]
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 07/05/14 15:10, David Chisnall wrote:
>> On 5 Jul 2014, at 14:07, Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Interestingly, -Wno-uninitialized has been in bsd.sys.mk since r76861,
>>> and the accompanying comment ("XXX Delete -Wuninitialized by default for
>>> now -- the compiler doesn't always get it right") has never been
>>> changed. :-)
>>>
>>> It is probably time to re-enable that warning after 13 years, at least.
>>
>> It probably only wants enabling for clang. GCC (at least, GCC 4.2.1)
>> performs this analysis based on analyses run by the optimisers and so the
>> warnings are dependent on optimisation level.
>>
>> David
>
> Hi,
>
> Is someone working on this?
I was going to chime in and claim that I had seen false positives from
-Wuninitialized even from recent clang, but upon consulting my build logs,
it seems that the false positives are actually from
-Wconditional-uninitialized. Is that known to be less reliable?
-Ben
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.GSO.1.10.1407151000390.21571>