https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||6.5.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.5.0 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
--- Comment #15 from Aso Renji ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> What do you mean by "same problem"? The original testcase does not produce a
> warning with GCC 6.3.0
No, this warning still appear if (and only if) you use -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Aso Renji from comment #13)
> Still have same problem in g++ 6.3.0. So, please reopen this bug.
What do you mean by "same problem"? The original testcase does not produce a
warning with GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
Aso Renji changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||asorenji at gmail dot com
--- Comment #13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
--- Comment #9 from Ilya Murav'jov muravev at yandex dot ru 2010-10-06
19:43:30 UTC ---
I've come across another weird warning emission in g++ 4.4:
$ cat test.cc
#include new
struct interface_type {
virtual interface_type* clone(void*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2010-10-06 20:56:56 UTC ---
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010, muravev at yandex dot ru wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
--- Comment #9 from Ilya Murav'jov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Murav'jov muravev at yandex dot ru 2010-10-05
00:10:20 UTC ---
AFAIK, users of Boost.Function suffer from this PR too.
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4538
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874
Florian Weimer fw at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot
--- Comment #5 from fw at deneb dot enyo dot de 2010-01-31 09:38 ---
Isn't this a wrong-code bug? Or is the information used for the diagnostic not
used by the optimizers?
--
fw at deneb dot enyo dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-31 11:17 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Isn't this a wrong-code bug? Or is the information used for the diagnostic
not
used by the optimizers?
The diagnostics are independent on the optimizers, the one diagnostic that
isn't
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-06 09:09 ---
4.5 also fails and I cannot figure why if I do:
#include new
struct APInt {
int i;
};
int main() {
APInt I;
void *d;
char Data[sizeof(APInt)];
new((void*)Data)APInt();
d = Data;
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-11-06 09:16 ---
Subject: Re: Incorrect dereferencing type-punned pointer
will break strict-aliasing rules warning
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-06 09:18 ---
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-06 09:09
---
4.5 also fails
Fails in that it warns still.
The first example warns with 4.5, while adding an extra variable and doing a
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-06 09:20 ---
Btw, this warning is emitted from the frontend which only warns if it sees
the address of an object casted, not random pointers (because of the
many false positives). The frontend code also has no idea of the
18 matches
Mail list logo
