--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-05-17 12:30
---
(In reply to comment #8)
- yes, however as the loigical extention of:
a null reference is undefined = may trap = will trap
is simply wrong, and is not justifyable; such an optimization
is target
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-05-17 21:24
---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #8)
- yes, however as the loigical extention of:
a null reference is undefined = may trap = will trap
is simply wrong, and is not justifyable; such an
--- Additional Comments From marcus at jet dot franken dot de 2005-05-10
06:31 ---
see comment #1 ...
you already derefenced the pointer in ppv (in the line
unsigned long lv = *lvp;
)
so the compiler assumes that anohter NULL ptr check is not needed.
--
--- Additional Comments From chaac at nic dot fi 2005-05-10 08:00 ---
Andrew,
Here is a pointer to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
Topic started on May 08, 2005 with subject WinAVR 20050214 (gcc 3.4.3) and
optimizer bug.
--
--- Additional Comments From chaac at nic dot fi 2005-05-10 08:06 ---
In AVR's reading memory address 0 is valid thing though. In a way I can
understand why to optimization in x86 but shouldn't this be disabled by default
on AVR's?
--
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-05-10 08:31
---
(In reply to comment #5)
see comment #1 ...
you already derefenced the pointer in ppv (in the line
unsigned long lv = *lvp;
)
so the compiler assumes that anohter NULL ptr check is not needed.
--- Additional Comments From chaac at nic dot fi 2005-05-10 08:41 ---
Sorry about wrong mailing list pointer :)
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/avr-gcc-list/2005-05/index.html
Here is correct URL :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||ericw at evcohs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-09
22:28 ---
I don't think this is a bug since conf and ppv cannot be null as you deferenced
them already and would
trap on most machines. (there is another bug about this recently filed too).
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-09
22:31 ---
Do you have a pointer to the mail on that list?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-09
22:32 ---
Oh, one more thing, deferencing a null pointer is undefined by the C standard.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
--
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn||21305
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-05-09 23:19
---
(In reply to comment #1)
I don't think this is a bug since conf and ppv cannot be null as you
deferenced them already
and would trap on most machines. (there is another bug about this recently
filed
13 matches
Mail list logo
