On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 17:18, Krishna Narayanan <
krishnanarayanan132002@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for your response,Could you please clarify if this is a bug?
>
It warns with -O1, which is the documented behaviour:
The effectiveness of some warnings depends on optimizations also
being enabled. For example -Wsuggest-final-types is more
effective with link-time optimization and -Wmaybe-uninitialized does
not warn at all unless optimization is enabled.
So no, I don't think it' a bug. GCC is behaving as designed. Ideally it
would be better at warning without optimization, but changing that would be
hard.
> Regards,
> Krishna Narayanan.
>
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 10:28 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 16:25, Krishna Narayanan via Gcc-help <
>> gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>> As an extension to the bug 93432
>>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93432), I would like to
>>> add a few more points,here in the given code
>>> (https://godbolt.org/z/sYjqjqh3d) there is a warning averted but there
>>> is no warning shown for this code
>>> (https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/oo5sf4oec) .
>>> I tried it with "-fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv
>>> -fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations" and "fsanitize=undefined".There
>>> are no errors for gcc but clang has runtime errors,the error for
>>> clang: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/1hq8x1o8E .
>>>
>>> Can we have a warning in the second case as well? It will be much more
>>> convenient as there is a lapse of initialization.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, ideally it would warn.
>>
>>
>>
>
