https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
Arsen Arsenović changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arsen at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 87951 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> > Thank you Andrew for clarification of the behavior. Apparently it's quite
> > common question. One note that I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #8)
> Thank you Andrew for clarification of the behavior. Apparently it's quite
> common question. One note that I have about C behavior is that we can maybe
> also add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Vitali from comment #6)
> Actually as of C++17 it's undefined behaviour.
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1766
>
> so at the very least when compiled with C++17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
Vitali changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
Vitali changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
--- Comment #2 from Vitali ---
Why has clang made a different decision? Also, this warning is present in C++
code too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
16 matches
Mail list logo
