--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-05
09:21 ---
Reopening to ...
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-05
09:21 ---
Mark as a dup of bug 21920.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21920 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-05-21 21:28
---
(In reply to comment #4)
Subject: Re: wrong-code with inlining and type-punned pointer
Because this is what the standard says is allowed. The standard also
says the comparisons and assignment between
schlie at comcast dot net [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| (In reply to comment #4)
| Subject: Re: wrong-code with inlining and type-punned pointer
| Because this is what the standard says is allowed. The standard also
| says the comparisons and assignment between pointers without a case is
|
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-05-21 21:42 ---
Subject: Re: wrong-code with inlining and type-punned pointer
schlie at comcast dot net [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| (In reply to comment #4)
| Subject: Re: wrong-code with inlining and type-punned
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-05-21 22:28
---
(In reply to comment #6)
Subject: Re: wrong-code with inlining and type-punned pointer
Sorry, I don't see that implication. However, GCC already has a
switch for tuning off such comparison.
- Then what
On May 21, 2005, at 6:28 PM, schlie at comcast dot net wrote:
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-05-21
22:28 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Subject: Re: wrong-code with inlining and type-punned pointer
Sorry, I don't see that implication. However, GCC
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2005-05-21
22:32 ---
Subject: Re: wrong-code with inlining and type-punned pointer
On May 21, 2005, at 6:28 PM, schlie at comcast dot net wrote:
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-05-21
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-05-21 23:31
---
(In reply to comment #8)
Subject: Re: wrong-code with inlining and type-punned pointer
- Then what is the purpose of the this portion of the standard, if
not to clarify the intent that lvalues which
--- Additional Comments From gcc at arbruijn dot dds dot nl 2005-05-05
15:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=8825)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8825action=view)
C source exposing problem
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21402
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-05
16:13 ---
unsigned char * and char * are in two different aliasing sets while char
and unsigned char are in the
same one, well char is every aliasing set.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-05-05 17:19
---
(In reply to comment #2)
unsigned char * and char * are in two different aliasing sets while char
and unsigned char are in the same one, well char is every aliasing set.
Then I can't help but wonder if it may
On May 5, 2005, at 1:19 PM, schlie at comcast dot net wrote:
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-05-05
17:19 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
unsigned char * and char * are in two different aliasing sets
while char
and unsigned char are in the same one, well char is
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2005-05-05
18:41 ---
Subject: Re: wrong-code with inlining and type-punned pointer
On May 5, 2005, at 1:19 PM, schlie at comcast dot net wrote:
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-05-05
14 matches
Mail list logo
