On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 11:55:39AM -0600, Warren Young wrote: > On Jun 2, 2015, at 2:21 AM, Jan Nijtmans <jan.nijtm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > It turns out not to be a gcc optimization bug after all: the optimization > > is very valid > > According to what standard?? What I see in 30af11d4 should be legal even in > C89.
It is syntactically correct, but UB. The variable is going out of scope and the associated storage is therefore recycled. Joerg _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
