On 2009-04-20 15:17:44 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2009-04-17 12:09:42 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > At least, let's get it archived on GCC mailing lists.
>
> Is it a bug that has been identified?
FYI, this has been fixed in the 4.3 branch in r143494.
This was PR tree-optimization/367
On 2009-04-20 10:04:00 -0400, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>> As the bug occurs only when malloc is in the tested function,
>
> Note that gcc 'knows' that memory obtained by malloc does not
> alias other memory.
Yes, in the case of GMP, this was a GMP internal function, not malloc,
but this function is d
As the bug occurs only when malloc is in the tested function,
Note that gcc 'knows' that memory obtained by malloc does not
alias other memory.
You can use a differently named wrapper function for malloc,
or use the malloc attribute for another function, to experiment
how this affects code gene
On 2009-04-20 00:30:21 -0700, James Dennett wrote:
> 2009/4/19 Jason Mancini :
> >
> >> Vincent Lefevre writes:
> >> while ((*(q++))-- == 0) ;
> >
> > Is that defined and legal?? Is q incremented before or after *q
> > is decremented? They are both post operators!
>
> It's defined and legal
On 2009-04-17 12:09:42 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> At least, let's get it archived on GCC mailing lists.
Is it a bug that has been identified? If not, perhaps this should
be added to the regression tests.
The program without the quotes:
/* With GCC 4.3.2 and -O2 option: output value is 1 in
2009/4/19 Jason Mancini :
>
>> Vincent Lefevre writes:
>> while ((*(q++))-- == 0) ;
>
> Is that defined and legal?? Is q incremented before or after *q is
> decremented? They are both post operators!
> Jason Mancini
It's defined and legal (so long as q != &q, which might well be
guaranteed
> Vincent Lefevre writes:
>while ((*(q++))-- == 0) ;
Is that defined and legal?? Is q incremented before or after *q is
decremented? They are both post operators!
Jason Mancini
_
Rediscover Hotmail®: Get e-mail storage that g
At least, let's get it archived on GCC mailing lists.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Torbjorn Granlund wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre writes:
>
> FYI, here's a simple testcase:
>
> /* With GCC 4.3.2 and -O2 option: output value is 1 instead of 0.
> * If -fno-strict-aliasing is added, this bug d
