https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
--- Comment #18 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #17)
> Can you open a separate bug please?
sure: pr71876
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
>
> --- Comment #16 from Bernd Edlinger ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
--- Comment #16 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #15)
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
> >
> > --- Comment #14 from Bernd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
>
> --- Comment #14 from Bernd Edlinger ---
> One question though...
>
> This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
--- Comment #14 from Bernd Edlinger ---
One question though...
This depends on a special knowledge about "vfork",
but it seems that gcc does not honor -ffreestanding
correctly in this case, because:
gcc -ffreestanding pr71104-1.c
should not ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Jul 13 08:03:04 2016
New Revision: 238287
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238287&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-07-13 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/71104
* gi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8)
> Not that I like this proposal at all (given it changes function arg
> evaluation order on x86_64).
Does it?
"the function is evaluated before all its argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 17 May 2016, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
>
> --- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> C11 6.5.16/3 suggests that the LHS "operand" is evaluated in unspecified
> order.
It seems that C++ is moving towards specifying the order
http://www.open-std.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
C11 6.5.16/3 suggests that the LHS "operand" is evaluated in unspecified order.
6.5.2.2/10 says function argument "operands" are evaluated before the actual
call (which denotes a sequence point) and the rest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Interesting one. Not that I think we previously handled this "correctly":
:
foo ();
:
p.0 = p;
:
D.1765 = vfork ();
*p.0 = D.1765;
return;
:
ABNORMAL_DISPATCHER (0);
so we keep p.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
--- Comment #3 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
simplified a bit further:
void foo(void);
int vfork(void);
int *p;
void bar(void)
{
foo();
*p = vfork();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71104
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
18 matches
Mail list logo
