On Jun 6, 2015 9:51 AM, "Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen" <<a href="mailto:eirik@eirikba.org">eirik@eirikba.org</a>> wrote: > > Ilia Mirkin <<a href="mailto:imirkin@alum.mit.edu">imirkin@alum.mit.edu</a>> writes: > > > Sure. Fix it in GCC :) disable the bogus warning, whatever. I really really > > hate pandering to broken tools, sending the message that it's ok for the > > tools to be broken. > > While I largely agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure I agree with what > is a "broken tool". If a tool regularly catches real, nasty bugs and > "fixing" the false positives have negligible cost, then I don't consider > the tool broken. When it comes to the warning about uninitialized data, > that seems to me a typical case of this. I doubt it's that warning. It's probably the "may be uninitialized" one, which regularly produces false positives.