Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 08:23:32PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> The Intel documentation for _mm256_undefined_si256() [0]
>> indicates that it is intended to return "undefined elements," so it seems
>> like the use of an uninitialized variable might be intentional.
> See also https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=72af61b122.
Ah, interesting. That hasn't propagated to stable distros yet,
evidently (and even when it does, I wonder how soon Coverity
will understand it). Anyway, that does establish that it's
gcc's problem not ours. Thanks for digging!
regards, tom lane