Noted Sir,Thank you for the clarification. On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 11:07 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. >>> >>> >>> >>
