http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
eidletni at mail dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #14
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-03-26
17:49:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> not sure if this will help.
> but i found this problem with -O2 optimzed code in GCC 4.5.1 (and 4.4.1)
AJ, if you are unsure that it is the same bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
--- Comment #12 from AJ 2011-03-26 16:56:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
ignore my comments. i can't confirm it sufficiently. i might be wrong.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
AJ changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aj664 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #11 from AJ 20
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
--- Comment #10 from eidletni at mail dot ru 2011-01-25 19:40:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> WONTFIX doesn't mean "nobody cares"
As I know, it does. Bugzilla resolution: fixed - "we have problem and fix it",
invalid - "user may think that w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-01-25
19:10:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I really don't understand, why you guys so easily set wontfix to this bug.
> Nobody cares that "inlining constructor" or "return instead throw" depends on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
--- Comment #8 from eidletni at mail dot ru 2011-01-25 18:46:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> >because constructor of struct A never called with "bad"
> How can that be true if the compiler does not know that or could figure that
> out?
In th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-01-25
13:16:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> If you want to, although Clang can't analyze C++
The difference is that by design, Clang aims to do it at some moment in the
future, it is a matter of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-01-25
13:07:06 UTC ---
If you want to, although Clang can't analyze C++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-01-25
12:58:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Well. You might argue that the wording should be 'may be' in all cases
> where the offending statement might not be executed (which is certainly
> und
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #3 from Manu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-01-24
21:17:15 UTC ---
if ( i>=SIZE && f1() )
throw 1;
bool v[SIZE] = { 1, 1 };
return v[i];
If f1 returns false, then you have above array bounds access.
>because constructor of struc
14 matches
Mail list logo
