[Bug c++/35057] Integer variable value lost due to optimizations?

2008-03-03 Thread olafvdspek at gmail dot com 


--- Comment #3 from olafvdspek at gmail dot com  2008-03-03 16:30 ---
Hmm, should I change the status back to NEW manually?


-- 

olafvdspek at gmail dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35057

[Bug c++/35057] Integer variable value lost due to optimizations?

2008-03-03 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-03-03 16:34 ---
No, we only confirm bugs once they have a reduced testcase.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35057

[Bug c++/35057] Integer variable value lost due to optimizations?

2008-03-03 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-03-03 16:37 ---
  basic_endpoint()
: data_()
  {
asio::detail::sockaddr_in4_type data
  = reinterpret_castasio::detail::sockaddr_in4_type(data_);
data.sin_family = 2;
data.sin_port = 0;
data.sin_addr.s_addr = ((in_addr_t) 0x);
  }

you are violating C/C++ type-based aliasing rules here (and in other places).


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution||INVALID


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35057

[Bug c++/35057] Integer variable value lost due to optimizations?

2008-02-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-02-02 15:23 ---
Please provide preprocessed source of your testcase.  It is very likely
that asio::ip::tcp::endpoint is bogus.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35057

[Bug c++/35057] Integer variable value lost due to optimizations?

2008-02-02 Thread olafvdspek at gmail dot com 


--- Comment #2 from olafvdspek at gmail dot com  2008-02-02 15:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=15078)
 -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15078action=view)
Preprocessor output (I hope)

I hope -E is the right option.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35057