http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56301
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2013-02-18 13:34:31 UTC --- On Mon, 18 Feb 2013, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56301 > > Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org > > --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-18 > 13:31:28 UTC --- > Well, perhaps we need to improve documentation, because for calloc the memory > doesn't have undefined contents either, it is well defined to be all zeros. Well, it points to nothing ;) The bug here is that probably job_new links the allocated memory into some global list or so, so it's not about initializing the memory but the fact that it _is_ aliased by other things. Yes, we can probably give a few examples of what is not appropriate use of 'malloc'. Do you think I should revert the patch on the branch nevertheless? (it was a fix for a missed-optimization regression only ...)
