https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92297
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92297
Luca Rocca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92297
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92297
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 92298 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92297
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
*** Bug 92299 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92297
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Luca Rocca from comment #2)
> Consider also for comparison the approach of GCC up to gcc-6.4.0,
> reading this comment from the corresponding file gcc-6.4.0/gcc/match.pd:
>
> /* Make sure to p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92297
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
> Then if X = 0 we should expect an exception triggered at runtime, as we have
> for example for 1 / 0.
No undefined does not mean trap at runtime, it means anything can happen ...
