Hi list,
if I compile the attached code with -Wall, 4.4.2 gives the me the
following bogus warnings, while 4.3.[2|3|4] and 4.2.4 don't complain:
test.f90: In function 'test1':
test.f90:10: warning: 'j' is used uninitialized in this function
test.f90: In function 'test2':
test.f90:15: warning: 'i' is used uninitialized in this function
I did spot something fishy in the (pruned) tree-dump:
test2 (integer(kind=4) & n)
{
integer(kind=4) i;
loopvar.3 = i;
i = 1;
}
test1 shows the same thing for i and j, but only complains about j. Am
I following the wrong lead?
test1 (integer(kind=4) & n, integer(kind=4) & m)
{
integer(kind=4) i;
integer(kind=4) j;
{
integer(kind=4) loopvar.9;
loopvar.9 = j;
j = 1;
{
if (j > D.1540) goto L.4;
{
integer(kind=4) loopvar.8;
loopvar.8 = i;
i = 1;
Unless someones proves me wrong, it looks like a (minor) 4.4
regression - shall I file a PR?
Cheers,
Dennis
[test.f90]
PROGRAM test
CALL test1(2,2)
CALL test2(2)
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE test1(N,M)
INTEGER :: i, j, M, N
PRINT *, [ ((i, i=1,M), j=1,N) ]
END SUBROUTINE test1
SUBROUTINE test2(N)
INTEGER :: i, N
PRINT *, [(1.0, i=1,N)]
END SUBROUTINE test2
END PROGRAM test
