On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:06 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > * Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 09:30:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > Ugh, why on Earth didn't GCC warn about this? The bad pattern is pretty > > > simple & obvious once pointed out ... compilers should have no trouble > > > realizing that 'ret' is returned uninitialized in some of these control > > > paths. Yet not a peep from the compiler ... > > > > We disabled that warning years ago (5?) because GCC had too many false > > positives. > > GCC had some pretty bogus notions about 'possible' uninitialized use that > encouraged some bad code patterns, but in this case there's readily > provable uninitialized use, that a compiler should warn about. > > Is it possible to disable just the unreliable, probabilistic part of GCC's > uninitialized variables warnings? -Wno-maybe-uninitialized? Uros.
