On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 12:11:55PM -0600, Warren Young wrote: > On Jun 2, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@britannica.bec.de> > wrote: > > > > 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. > > “Undefined Behavior”?
Yes. > > The variable is going out of scope > > The patch changes only the scope of azView, so if it is out of scope, then > the use on line 725 won’t compile. > > The only way you can refer to a variable that has gone out of scope is to > pass pointers around, which isn’t going on here. No, it is exactly what is happening here via style_submenu_multichoice. Joerg _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
