https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
--- Comment #7 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> -Wstrict-aliasing is kind of confusing in this regards since it's different
> from how other warnings with numerical levels work. Normally a higher
> numerical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
--- Comment #5 from Stas Sergeev ---
Note that this code example
is trivial. If the warning have
disappeared as a false-negative,
then I am surprised you close this
as NOTABUG, as there is definitely
something to fix or improve here.
Not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
--- Comment #4 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Because GCC can optimize that pun+dereference pattern without _not_ breaking
Did you mean to say "without breaking the code"?
I will assume it is the case:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Stas Sergeev from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > I think you misunderstood what precise means in this context really.
> > "Higher levels correspond to higher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
--- Comment #2 from Stas Sergeev ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think you misunderstood what precise means in this context really.
> "Higher levels correspond to higher accuracy (fewer false positives). "
So was it a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103502
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
