https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 16 07:57:56 2018
New Revision: 257722
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257722=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-02-16 Richard Biener
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Feb 16 07:56:16 2018
New Revision: 257721
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257721=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-02-16 Richard Biener
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
It's not technically required (at least for this issue and as regards C
standards conformance) simply because options such as -std=c99 / -std=c11
imply -fexcess-precision=standard, so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
For the required part I guess we need Joseph's input, though even if it might
not be technically required, I thought that for volatile our general approach
has been "be conservative when you see volatile".
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code