https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=125874
--- Comment #4 from Josef Melcr <jmelcr at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #3) > I think this is invalid code. A tail-call deliberately discards the current > stack frame (aka "continuation") restoring the previous one, but the setjmp > records a reference to it in global scope. That is, you have a dangling > pointer and any longjmp would be UB. I think so as well, I am just trying to make sure that this is a clang issue and it shouldn't accept it. > The obvious fix while keeping the tail-calls is to put the setjmp in the > (non-tail) caller of c. I am not sure the fix would be so simple in the real example, but I will try to suggest something upstream I suppose.
