https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
The kernel false positive is discussed in bug 104069 comment 13. I don't think
it's related to this issue but you're of course right that this warning isn't
immune to false positives. That's true for all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
>
> --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
> To "use" means to evaluate. The strict C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
To "use" means to evaluate. The strict C semantics are that the realloc()
argument becomes indeterminate after the function has returned non-null,
whether or not the returned pointer is the same as the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> Am 25.01.2022 um 19:20 schrieb msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
> :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
>
> --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
> I meant to say "C++ made it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I meant to say "C++ made it implementation-defined to use a pointer made
indeterminate by the pointee's lifetime having ended."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The use in your example is undefined in C (as is any other use of an
indeterminate pointer value). C++ made using pointers made it
implementation-defined a few years ago while still allowing for it to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104215
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
---
