[LLVMdev] Build Failure

David Blaikie dblaikie at gmail.com
Thu Jan 3 08:35:24 PST 2013

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:22 AM,  <dag at cray.com> wrote:
> "Caldarale, Charles R" <Chuck.Caldarale at unisys.com> writes:
>>> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
>>> On Behalf Of greened at obbligato.org
>>> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Build Failure
>>> It seems a better option than simply ignoring warnings and then missing
>>> a real bug in the haystack of warning messages.
>> Definitely agree with that.  Our project coding standards require
>> _zero_ warnings at commit time (but that only applies to our code, not
>> imported libraries).
> So how did these slip in?

I assume from Charles's perspective "our project" is not LLVM but
whatever he works on most of the time (& "imported libraries" is

>>> I've committed fixes to lots of -Wuninitialized warnings in my tree.
>>> It's all just initializing local variables, which shouldn't result in
>>> extra stores.
>> What do you think the initialization is?  Something has to write the
>> initial value, and that write is frequently pointless.
> It's most likely a store to a register.  That's hardly a performance
> issue.  Even a store to the stack has little effect.
> Really, we're going to ignore errors because we can't afford one store
> in initialization code?

Essentially we don't want to pessimize code just because of a bad warning.

The other point Chandler was making, though, was that this sort of fix
means that other tools (Valgrind/MemSan) won't catch a broader class
of errors because we will have silenced them too.

>> The real problem with this specific warning is that gcc doesn't
>> properly track that a variable is used only under the same conditions
>> in which it is set.
> That is not always true in the cases I've found.  That's the consequence
> of ignoring warnings.

Except it isn't. We can ignore this warning & instead use
Valgrind-esque tools to catch not only these bugs, but catch & fix
them better by learning which specific codepath leads to the
uninitialized use, rather than just initializing a variable to zero
(or whatever) even in cases where that value was never intended to be
used in any computation.

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list