https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90377
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90377
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90377
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2019-05-07 00:00
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90377
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
Thanks. The unreduced file does not reproduce for me. But anyway, we warn for
things like
int a[1];
void f(int n){
for(int i=0;i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90377
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 46319
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46319&action=edit
Unreduced test-case
Yes, I used creduce. I'm attaching unreduced test-case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90377
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Most likely used creduce to reduce the failure.
creduce didn't use to produce such awful code. Part is because of -fpermissive,
but part seems to be because the re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90377
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
What kind of obfuscator did this go through?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90377
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1)
> What kind of obfuscator did this go through?
Most likely used creduce to reduce the failure. NOTE sometimes creduce reduced
are reduced into invalid/undefined cod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90377
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2019-5-7
CC|
